Of course minty, it will work just as well as registering cars has to eliminate the drunk driving problem. 53,000 some odd fatalities per year indicates that registering cars has really cut down on that drunk driving thing.
You should also remember that Sarah Brady’s company, HCI, seeks to ban the private ownership of handguns entirely. She’s been on that crusade since the assassination attempt in which her husband was shot, and she definitely views registration as a beginning, not an end.
Registration does nothing to deter crime, it doesn’t affect criminals, it doesn’t prevent criminals from getting guns, it doesn’t make crimes any easier to solve, it doesn’t make the public safer and it doesn’t serve any other purpose than to make a convenient list of doors to knock on when Sarah Brady and her ilk want to knock down doors. Oh, but Sarah brady doesn’t make policy right?
You’re too late. We already had that thread.
And catsix, what makes you think vehicle registration and driver licensing doesn’t help prevent drunk driving? You think unrestricted vehicle ownership and driving privileges would not increase reckless and irresponsible driving, including DWI? Seriously?
When did i ever claim that the NRA deliberately staged the rally at that time and glorified the trenchcoat maffia? Quote please.
I said they did stage the rally. If english was my first language i would probably have written “held a convention” instead, since the different connotations of “staging a rally” and “holding a convention” oubviously accounts for some missunderstanding here. Thanks for pointing that out, The Ryan.
about the "NRA being bought off by the weapons industry"
…or whatever slandering of your favourite organisation you think i’ve made. Originally I was replying to this statement by you…
With this:
Now you were the one hinting at some kind of propaganda conspiracy starting a “save the children” craze, in the process making references to some (unspecified) “anti-gun elite”. I was trying to draw ridicule over the idea.
So, give it up. The facts are that the NRA and the weapons industry, as well as other players, are making pro-gun lobbying. As well as other groups for sure are involved in anti-gun lobbying (Rosie O’Donnel, Dr Phil, Clinton whomever).
About the little guy.
Now you characterized the NRA as “[they] give a big voice to the little guy”. Now together with your remark about the “anti-gun elites”, I would deduct that you believe the following:
On the one side there is “the little” gun, who is pro-gun. On the other side there is “the elite” who is anti-gun.
Now I asked you to motivate why the NRA is more “the little guy” than people who are anti-gun. To this you replied:
Well, thank you for that pamphlet. But how about making an argument instead?
About the 2d Amendment
So I believe that part of why people like the NRA, like you, so easily sets the agenda in the US (as opposed to almost everywhere else), is the fact that the second amendment of your constitution mentions the right to bear arms. It will allways give you legitimacy, therefore making an attitude change in the public effectively impossible. Now in reply Mtgman argued that the 2d amendment doesnt mean that much since, in reality, the law is changed all the time by the prejudicate of rulings.
In my post to you, I was making the exact same point, and while doing this I gave you an example of how i thought you would argue to defend public gun use with the help of the 2d.
So what i was saying was basically that you believe that the second amendment gives you a right to bear arms.
I believe you would basically say so to?
So on this, we agree.
**** Well Catsix, John Harrison and The Ryan. I can tell you one thing guys, this is gonna take a whole lot of my time if i’m gonna debate y’all at the same time. Because soon SenorBeef is gonna join the party. I’ll get back to you.*
You said “You are 18, you can buy a gun anywhere without a license (you don’t have those, right?), but you can’t bring it to school. Weeell.”
I corrected you by saying there are some states that have licensing requirements, and there is a federally mandate requiring a firearm purchaser to be 21 from an FFL.
It was a clarification, I wasn’t trying to imply anything.
**
Yes, there would be more reason to discuss it.
**
Which causes me to wonder, as I often have: If the murder rate is going to be the same, what do the specific tools matter?
**
Yes, but it’s not as if we don’t have other places to compare it to, if we have country to country comparisons. The Swiss have a wide distribution of assault rifles with nearly no gun crime - Canada is a bit more restrictive than the US, but not terribly so - and they have a much lower rate of gun crime. And that goes back before they had more strict handgun control.
**
And furthermore, it is not that hard to accept that car acess as a casual necesity to go from me driving here, with the urge to run you down, to me actually doing so.
[quote]
**
While that would be considerably harder to accept about the magic necklace keeping Dumbo away. At least for me.
**
Well, guns don’t cause physiological responses, so they’re not exactly analogous. To be more analogous, if someone goes to mug someone to get money for drugs, I don’t believe that drugs are responsible for that person to commit a mugging - his own actions were.
**
Yes, I agree. But the point you made in your last post that I responded to is that guns cause the society in which there is violence and strife. So, if you take out the guns, you remove the violent society, therefore, no one needs the guns to protect themselves. What you were trying to do was label gun advocates as people who use circular logic - and your charaterization had logical errors that I pointed out.
**
You said in your previous post:
**
You’re implying that if we give up our guns, then the violent society we protect ourselves from won’t exist, because their guns are also gone. I’m saying that since the violent society isn’t caused by the presence of inanimate objects.
So what you’re saying is not logically consistent with what you said. You first said that if we banned guns, then their guns would be banned, and therefore we wouldn’t need our guns. But then you admit that it wouldn’t do anything to stop people with malicious intent, it would merely take the tools out of their hands.
The only way to be logically consistent in these views is if you don’t consider getting murdered with a crowbar, for example, to be violence - because you seem to be saying the problem of a violent society will be eliminated by eliminating the presence of guns.
To paraphrase: “You think you need guns because society is violent. But society is only violent because we let everyone have guns. If you eliminate the guns, then there’s nothing to protect yourself from.”
“Well, malicious people will still present a threat - the elimination of guns doesn’t simply make malicious intent go away. It doesn’t make society safe.”
“Well, I didn’t say anything about malicious people! I don’t think it’d cause criminals to stop attacking people!”
**
Sounds like you’re trying to demonize Americans.
What makes the enforcement difficult is what makes the enforcement of any bans difficult. So long as there is a demand, the prices will be high, and there will be people that are willing and able to smuggle stuff in. Besides that, any half decent machinist with even rudimentary equipment could manufacture a gun.
We’ve put billions upon billions into the drug war, and it hasn’t even begun to slow supply, let alone cripple it. What makes you think guns would be any different? So now you have an availability of guns - only they’re limited to those willing to commit illegal acts. Does this strike you as a superior balance of power?
**
You’re trying to ascribe my defense of gun rights to some penis compensating love of guns I have. Maybe it’s a defense mechanism… when people disagree with you, you paint them with some irrational motivation towards something to convince yourself that you’re utterly rational and they’re just attached emotionally.
My defense of gun rights has absolutely nothing to do with a personal desire to keep my gun, and everything to do with that it’s the right thing.
**
Really? Would the elderly be safer from home invaders? Would petite women be safer from large rapists?
Let’s face it, gun homicide isn’t a huge danger to the average Joe in this country. Many homicides (most?) are drug and gang related, hardly something that affects the average Joe. What’s left, you have, oh, I don’t know - anyone want to do the math? Probably a .0001% chance of being the victim of a gun homicide in any given year.
But if you create a society in which criminals have nothing to fear from their victims, you might see a huge raise in things like home invasions, as they see in England. You see bolder criminals, willing to operate with impunity, who have the advantage of being armed against those who aren’t.
Or would criminals go home when guns were banned, and take up honest work, because they’d suddenly be unwilling to break the law in other ways - including buying an illegal gun?
Such a societal engineering model is horribly authoritarian and against the core principles of this country. And even on the practical side, what you do is remove the victim’s ability to defend themselves, creating a greater power disparity between the assailant and victim, and making life as a criminal easier and less risky.
And you’re not just talking about some recreational hobby or material - even if you were, I’d still probably be in disagrement - but something people stake the protection of themselves and their families on.
That thread doesn’t answer the three questions I asked. It does answer the “means” question (you advocate a universal registration system with criminal penalties for failure to register every transfer of a firearm). After combing through the thread, however, I don’t see a specific reference to what you expect the registration scheme to accomplish, nor the costs of installing and maintaining the registration database, nor the number of lives you expect will be saved, nor the number of crimes you expect the database will solve.
In that thread, you also state an assumption that Haynes v. U.S. will not apply to a universal registration scheme. As I said to you in yet another thread, I don’t agree with your unsupported guess. As such, I have to question the value of a “must register” law whose only potential penalties would be felt by persons who had broken no other laws. All the registration scheme would be doing is making criminals of ordinary folks who failed to register. What’s the point of that?
But forget that, let’s suppose your guess is correct. Do you expect a mugger to be deterred by an administrative penalty? Do you expect him to be frightened of the possibility of an extra few months in jail, when he’s already engaging in activity that could put him in jail for years? As I’ve said before, a bank robber doesn’t care if the tires on his getaway car are too wide to be street-legal.
So, again: what do you expect to accomplish with your registration scheme, and what is the cost, in money, lives, and personal freedom?
Max, there are firearms registration systems in place in states and cities across the country. People get fined and/or jailed for violating them, too, I assume. Since Haynes is so well-known among gun rights folks, you’d figure that somebody would have attempted a 5th Amendment defense to a registration charge. If it’s such a killer argument you’ve got there, how come there aren’t any cases?
Nope, I’m quite convinced I’m right about and you’re wrong. Until somebody comes up with some case law, I’m gonna charge right ahead with making us all register our weapons.
I’d wager there aren’t any cases because, contrary to your expectations, few if any convicted are jailed for failure to register a firearm. It’s much more satisfying (and carries a longer sentence) to jail the convictied criminal for the illegal possession of the firearm, rather than the administrative violation. Why bother taking on the burden of proving that “he possessed the weapon AND failed to register” when you can simply prove “he possessed the weapon”?
And by the way, I did indeed answer your questions in the other thread. Unless, of course, you’re asking me to place estimates on the number of crimes prevented, lives saved, bad guys jailed, etc. I’m confident the effects would be beneficial overall, but trying to quantify those effects ahead of time would be a fool’s game. In terms of the mechanism, though, I think I covered that pretty well: instant matching of weapons, rounds, and shells to from the crime to the registered owner of the weapon.
I’m going to cut-to-the-chase: I could care less what anyone thinks about my right to keep and bear arms. I care not what the courts think, I care not what the Constitution says, I care not what Sarah Brady thinks. When it comes right down to it, I have a right to keep and bear arms because I say so. And if you disagree then have the guts to come and get ‘em…
Yup, I sure am. Taking away a freedom ought not be the subject of a whimsical social experiment. Quantify. If you can’t, you don’t get or deserve support.
I’m confident that imposing a national speed limit of 30 MPH on all interstate highways would save thousands of lives per year. Since even one life saved is worth any cost, we should do this, ja?
I don’t think you’ve really thought this through. For the sake of argument, let’s say a system such as you propose in that other thread exists: we have technology that will mark a bullet and shell when leaving a gun such that it leaves a unique mark. That being the case, why not just use this technology to “print” (or whatever) the full name and address of the owner on the bullet and shell? This information can be “encoded” (or whatever) into the gun at the point of sale, when a person is required to give his information, without keeping registration information. That way, you can still identify the owner of the gun that fired a particular bullet, but there’s no registration database. If such a scheme existed, would you still advocate registration? Why would you need both?
Nope, screw that. There’s nothing magical about guns that makes them immune to the ordinary regulatory process. Nobody had to come up with such numbers before they passed laws regulating medicines, or airplanes, or mobile homes, or anything else. We make informed judgments about how best to regulate the product in question, we give it a shot, and we adjust (or abandon) as appropriate as time goes by. Same deal with guns.
And where the hell have I said any such thing? Go on, find a quote. In fact, if you read that thread, I believe you’ll see that I specifically rejected that notion, I believe in response to ExTank. I’m talking about straightforward cost-benefit analysis, not the “Think of the children!” parody the people your side so often tries to make out of the argument. I support those proposals precisely because I believe their benefits (lives and injuries saved, crimes prevented, and criminals jailed, Crafter_Man’s house surrounded by the ATF) outweigh their costs (requiring gun owners to fill out a one-page form).
Because guns change ownership, and that would not enable law enforcement to track the gun past the first purchaser.
Interesting point. Have we ever had a regulation abandoned if it didn’t work? More specifcally, have any gun control laws been abandoned after not achieving the specific goal?
From the information I’ve read only new laws are passed, and no ineffective law is removed, but if someone has different info please post it.
(Reminds me of “There is nothing more permanent as a temporary tax” )
Because soon SenorBeef is gonna join the party. I’ll get back to you.*
)