that proof doesn’t currently exist. registration might significantly reduce crime if implemented on a national level and if it puts the reponsibility on law abiding, responsible gun owners and retailers to take steps to reduce the proliferation of untraceable guns. i know a lot of gun control opponents are unwilling to put in the effort, or they think people will do it on their own without more laws. i disagree. in the previous thread, i posted a cite that showed that only two states currently have registration laws, one of which is washington d.c. (and yes, i’m aware of the irony). i agree that there is no value in state by state registration laws.
I must modify a portion of my previous statement. As zwaldd has pointed out, conclusive proof of a reduction in crime caused by gun registration does not exist. In fact, it may be impossible to prove a correlation. Therefore, I’ll ease that restriction and merely ask for reasonable evidence of a correlation between gun registration and a positive effect on gun crime. However, reasonable evidence does not include statements such as “registration might significantly reduce crime.” This statement is an opinion, not evidence.
Sorry 'bout that.
This is exactly the premise of my proposal - to reduce the incidence of gun violence by reducing the number of untraceable firearms. My proposal would, necessarily, be a federal program, since some of the current problems with gun control legislation involve driving to another state to avoid a restriction.
Demanding conclusive proof of something that hasn’t been tried on a sufficient scale poses an impossible burden, don’t you think? Besides, I’m not asking generally if gun registration works, I’m suggesting a specific proposal to make registration absolute and painless, and implying that there would be a reduction in gun violence. Even the NRA says that problem is illegal firearms, and not legal ones. Do you dispute that this proposal, if implemented, would reduce the number of illegal firearms over time?
I don’t know if ALL gun legislation is needed to be nullified. However, the need for simplification is immense, IMOSHO.
No argument there. However, good luck in getting Rosie O’Donnell to realize that automatic weapons are NOT the tool of the Devil.
As Unclebeer pointed out, registration has little to do with preventing crime, even if it sounds like a nice idea in theory. Among the problems, it would be hideously expensive to list enough identifying marks on a gun that cannot be altered, which would makes guns (and their upkeep/registration) hideously expensive. And I think poor people are still covered under the 2nd Amendment.
Again, a nifty plan in theory, but as with registration, it would be far more of a hassle then a help. In order to ensure that Joe Law-abider wouldn’t be negatively affected by a hassle, you have to guarantee a stark minimum number of illegally-held guns. Until you can do that, you have to assume that there’s a danger, and allow people to protect themselves from that hypothetical danger.
There’s a plan… I see no reason why background checks need to take 30 days. If cops can pull up your background in a matter of seconds at a traffic stop, so should gun dealers. Heck, you wouldn’t even need a new agency to take care of that, the information’s already there.
No. A thousand times no. Well, okay, not a thousand… maybe just a couple hundred times no. Life in prison? Do you know how long that is? Unless you’re 70, it’s a long time. HOWEVER, illegal gun ownership SHOULD be punished more than it currently is. In fact, the punishment should be mandatory (I will elaborate in a bit…).
Another negatory. It’s the lawful authority who should have to prove your gun to be illegal, not the other way around. “Innocent until proven guilty” and all that.
Again, not “life in prison”. If it’s found that a gun committed in a crime was yours (has your fingerprints on it, for example) and you never reported it stolen, you would bear some of the responsibility.
Again, not “life in prison”. I think the supplying of illegal weapons (like uzi’s and other banned weapons) should be met with harsh penalties. Mandatory 20 years, maybe?
Here’s a better system that does away with all this “registration” nonsense… if you use a gun in a crime, that’s an automatic 5 years in prison in addition to whatever other sentence you get. If you shoot the gun, that’s an automatic 10 years. If you murder someone with a gun, automatic life in prison.
That’s another “no”. Again, an unreasonable and unnecessary burden to be carried by the law-abiding without many significant results.
In other words, a person is responsible for his gun. And his kids/wife/dog/etc. No argument here. However, that little word “registered”… not necessary.
We’ve already got that, and I approve. It should also be expanded to include people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs (i.e. “Carrying Under the Influence”).
Again, an idea I like in theory, but who’s to say what laws we should have in twenty years? I don’t think that sort of crippling limitation should be in place, even if I do think many gun controls laws to be ludicrous.
and just to pre-emptively slip in one other point from the previous thread, it is not reasonable to assert that registration will lead to confiscation or a weapons ban. in every situation where something gun-related has been banned (high cap magazines, assault rifles), registration was not a prerequisite and pre-ban items have remained legal to own, sell, and use. there is absolutely no precedence for registration of anything leading to a ban. if this argument sounds ‘straw’ at this point, just wait a little while - it’s bound to come up.
As you can see hansel, I realized that I’ve imposed an unreasonable burden on the rules of evidence and retracted that. Please proceed on the basis that you merely have to provide reasonable, rather than conclusive, evidence.
I have a couple problems with this.
First, the phrase, “illegal firearms.” The NRA does indeed have a problem with “illegal firearms,” if you define “illegal firearms” to be those possessed by people ineligible under current legislation to posses them lawfully. But, as you can see, this is, by definition, currently illegal. We need no new laws to address this and registration does nothing except make more firearms “illegal.” Along the way, registration simply creates an entirely new class of criminal, those otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for whatever reason, posses an unregistered firearm. Is it not unreasonable to believe that the vast majority of gun owners have no criminal intent? The evidence, of course bears this out. Why do you wish to impose a burden on law-abiding citizens?
Could you please define more completely what you mean by “illegal firearms?” Right now, it’s a bit vague. And if there’s one thing I hate, it’s vague or ambiguous laws. Ambiguity opens a whole wide avenue for abuse.
One quick point in preface before I address my second concern with your statement. Please keep in mind, that the burden of proof, or disproof, does not lie with me (or any other opponent of registration). Since you wish to enact this “draconian” system, you must provide evidence of the benefits. The burden of proof lies with you and the proponents.
So, with that in mind, I’ll answer the question you’ve posed … yes, I do dispute your contention that registration would reduce the number of “illegal firearms” over time, using any definition of “illegal firearm.” By making more firearms illegal, you inherently cause an increase in the total number of illegal firearms. The problem, despite what you contend the NRA admits, is not “illegal firearms.” The problem is the use of firearms in the commission of crime. The problem is violent criminal intent. Registration addresses neither of these; it does nothing, nor can it, to reduce violent criminal intent, or gun crime. You are blaming the tool for the hand that wields it. And putting an undue burden, financial and otherwise, on the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners.
Registration doesn’t prevent crime, it prevents the creation of illegal firearms, which pretty much everyone agrees is the main problem with gun violence.
Why would it be expensive? Gun manufacturers would submit the serial number and the ballistic signature of each weapon (as easily as including a slug fired from the gun with the serial number). At the time of sale, any identifying marks like scratches, bluing, etc., could be recorded on the transfer form. Not a hassle, and not an added expense.
I’m not suggesting we can make guns absolutely identifiable in every case. The idea is to make them maximally identifiable to make laundering weapons much more difficult, which should impact the supply of illegal firearms.
Why is this a hassle? I want to sell a gun: I go to a dealer and sell it to him; or, he takes it on consignment, and takes a minimal cut of the selling price; or, you agree to purchase a firearm from me, so we go to a local dealer, who oversees the transfer of registration for a $5 fee.
You’ve agreed that harsh penalties are necessary; I’ve agreed that life imprisonment is not necessary, if the penalties are harsh.
When I get pulled over for speeding, I have to present the car’s registration. No big deal. It means that, if I’m walking around with a weapon, I have to be able to present the I.D. with which I bought it… say, my driver’s licence, so that the police can run one of those instantaneous checks. I’m not suggesting invalidating laws against unreasonable search and seizure. If the police have forensic evidence that my gun was involved in a crime (because the slug in a corpse matches the ballistic signature of my weapon), they have probable cause to come to my house and order me to produce the weapon.
It’s reasonable if it brings about a society in which gun violence is effectively minimized, and the freedom of gun ownership is effectively maximized.
You seem to miss the point of a stringent and absolute registration system as the only burden on gun-owners: it creates a clear class of illegal weapons that may be removed from society immediately upon their apprehension, and should overall reduce the supply.
So. Is this a compromise you could live with?
No, it’s not unreasonable, and I think you can see that the burden I want to place on law-abiding citizens is minimal as far as the aims of this proposal go. After enactment, a gun owner has the burden of showing valid I.D. at the time of purchase, of taking whatever precautions he thinks are reasonable to secure the weapon from improper use, of immediately reporting the gun missing if it goes missing for whatever reason, and of disposing of it properly if he wants to get rid of it.
Under this proposal, an illegal firearm is a firearm that is:
[ul]
[li]not registered with the federal agency, or not identifiable by the federal agency.[/li][li]not in the possession of the person to whom the weapon is registered…[/li][/ul]
A legal firearm is a firearm that is registered, has its identifying marks intact (i.e., its serial number is in place and it hasn’t been damaged to prevent identification), and is in the possession of the registered owner (leaving aside obvious cases like letting your buddy at the firing range test fire it).
In the case of you borrowing my rifle to take it hunting over the weekend, some system of recognizing the lending of the weapon (like a chit) would have to be included. This doesn’t have to be intrusive; it could involve getting a cop to witness a piece of paper, something that poor people in Arkansas can do as easily as wealthy New York socialites.
Since my proposal is largely speculative, I can’t prove it. I can’t demonstrate that it would work. I believe, however, that my premises are sound, and lead to a valid conclusion, to wit:
[list=1]
[li]An absolute, convenient registration scheme will make the laundering of firearms very difficult (i.e., making guns untraceable).[/li][li]The more difficult it is to launder firearms, the fewer there will be.[/li][li]Untraceable firearms are always preferable to easily traceable firearms in the commission of crimes.[/li][li]With fewer untraceable firearms available, there will be either fewer crimes involving firearms, or crimes involving a firearm will be more easily solved and prosecuted for the use of a traceable firearm (most likely, some combination of the two).[/li][/list=1]
Prior to enacting this scheme, there will have to be a gun-registration drive that makes it easy for citizens to register their guns, or hand them over for destruction if they want. At all stages, the convenience of gun owners should be taken into account.
I’m not pretending that this will solve all problems. I’m offering it as a compromise that meets the goals of both sides of the debate over the long term.
Is this a compromise that you could live with?
that’s twisted. registration doesn’t automatically make firearms illegal. law abiding citizens will register their guns. transferring a gun without transferring the registration would be illegal. it’s like requiring a hunting license. hunting license laws don’t make hunting illegal. hunting without a license is what’s illegal. it’s the same kind of illogic as saying that laws shouldn’t put a burden on law abiding citizens. all laws put a burden on law abiding citizens. that’s what makes them law abiding. why do we have traffic signals? it’s to make law abiding citizens share the responsibility for one another’s safety. that’s the goal of gun registration.
Well, we have a serious problem then. If you cannot reasonably demonstrate a clear benefit to society, then your law is unethical. The goal of any legislation that restricts the freedoms of a citizen should be to provide measurable benefits that outweigh the costs of the restrictions enacted. If you cannot demonstrate a benefit, then there’s no point in even proposing legislation; it’s a non-starter.
Let’s see, I already have top present identification to buy handguns. If I’m stopped while carrying one, I’m certain the cops are already within their authority to ask for that identification. The vast majority of guns are already secured from unauthorized use, but if not, the current laws allow prosecution of anyone who has not reasonably secured a firearm. Disposing of guns properly? What does this mean? I seriously doubt too many guns are simply dropped in the kitchen trash and left on the curb for pickup.
Again, your law is pointless, even superfluous. These restrictions are already in place. And I’ll add, they are restrictions on normally law-abiding citizens only. They provide little benefit to society overall.
Let’s talk about your dismissal of the financial costs involved here for a minute. First, when has the government ever run a program cheaply and efficiently?
and
Umm, if this does not add cost either to the firearm itself, or create the imposition of a registration fee, just how the heckers do you intend to pay for it?
Also, are you aware the the “ballistic signature” of a gun changes over time with wear and age? The signature also changes with the temperature of the barrel. Also, if you are suggesting that extractor marks on a bullet case are a part of this, are you aware that revolvers and, of course, single shot handguns do not leave these marks? Nor do bolt action rifles typically leave identifiable case marks. How about reloaded ammo? Suppose I sell my used brass and it is then used in the commission fo a crime? Would not the extractor marks from my gun be on it? Scratches, bluing marks, and other cosmetic defects are going to do nothing to help trace guns either. These are all easily alterable. So, we’re left with rifling marks on the projectile itself. These, as currently used, do not conclusively prove anything either. They can be used to narrow down a weapon used to fire a particular projectile, or add circumstantial evidence to existing evidence, but they alone prove nothing. Rifling marks are also subject to alteration. There are also many guns on which changing the barrel is a simple matter.
Of course, if you were able to conclusively trace a firearm using any or all of these methods, you still have to find that firearm and trace it conclusively to the scene of the crime, don’t you? None of this does a damned thing if you do not have the firearm in question.
So we treat the symptoms, rather than the disease? Is this your suggestion? Why do we not deal with the crime directly? This should place no burden on law-abiding citizens. It affects only those who commit crime. Isn’t this a better idea? And I also take issue with your blanket statement claiming that pretty much everyone agrees that “illegal firearms” are the main cause of gun violence. I submit that violent criminal intent is the main problem. Criminals use guns as a tool of violence; the gun is not the source, legal or “illegal.” I think you need to re-examine your claim.
You’ve not demonstrated that your proposal will indeed reduce gun violence. You have, however, demonstrated a restriction on the general populace. Again, I ask you to reasonably show a clear benefit to society. I see too many “ifs” in your statements.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it here again. Registration creates a clear (and wholly new) class of criminal; Those otherwise law-abiding citizens who do not register their guns. Again, “illegal guns” are not the problem; it’s criminal intent. I do not believe your proposal reduces intent.
No. This proposal provides no clear benefit to society, while imposing undue restrictions. The costs outweigh any reasonably provable benefit.
I was going to sit this one out. I really was. Oh well.
Registration has always led to bans in countries where it has been enacted. Nazi Germany. Great Britain. Australia. Rwanda. The list is long and the exceptions are only those countries that haven’t had registration very long.
That is why gun rights groups and others opposed to victim disarming fight the registration proposals SO vigorously. We’ve not LET it become enacted here. The “straw” part of this thread is that high-cap magazines and semi-automatic have remained legal only because they are NOT registered. They also are not “banned.” The future production and import of these items are prohibited. That’s not the same thing as a ban. If registration were enacted, the next step would be to confiscate them. The fact that it has happened almost everywhere else it has been enacted makes it a pretty safe bet that we’re no different.
I would be willing to agree to your proposal, if you cut everything after points 1 and 2. It’s the only answer acceptable under the Constitution or for any truly free society.
i was referring to the usa. i can’t answer for nazi germany, but i’m not arguing that we repeal the second amendment, which alone separates us from the countries you listed. this article talks about the britain ban and lists current gun laws in other countries -http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/britguns930/.
looks like germany got their handguns back, albeit under a registration law.
When I said that I couldn’t demonstrate it, I meant that I can’t point to an existing state of affairs that proves my point.
Well, maybe I can. Canada has fewer guns overall, and far lower per capita rates of gun violence. Are there fewer per capita Canadians with criminal intent than Americans? I don’t think so. I think the reason there’s less gun violence is that there are fewer available guns to use for the commission of such crimes. The same for the UK (northern Ireland excepted).
Switzerland is a heavily armed society with little gun violence. Do the Swiss have less criminal intent per capita than Americans? I don’t think so. I think that the reason the Swiss have very little gun violence is that their weapons are very well regulated, and they have a cultural tradition of responsible gun ownership. Did strict regulation cause the cultural attitude? I doubt it: I believe that they reinforce each other, insofar as part of the attitude of responsible gun ownership is meeting the civil requirements for gun ownership.
By disposing of guns, I mean the opportunity to rid oneself, under amnesty from prosecution, of firearms that aren’t currently legal or wouldn’t be legal under the proposal.
Actually, what you’ve pointed out is that my legislative program is already in place. What’s missing is the convenience I’ve proposed in a national registry that’s technologically enabled. So you don’t disagree with my proposed laws.
I’m not going to be sucked into a debate on the merits of public vs. private initiatives. If it pleases you, let the NRA administer the program, under oversight from the GAO. Or, let several competing private entities run the national registry, much like the current system of domain registrars for the internet (i.e., one database, several competing corporations).
The cost of registering the signature of a firearm would add a small cost to the firearm. The gun market is a healthy and competitive marketplace, and I’m sure that market forces would prevent this from distorting the costs for weapons unduly.
As for the chit witnessed by the cop, that’s a matter of a piece of paper and five minutes while someone signs it. Hardly an undue burden.
I never said that there wouldn’t be registration fees. I don’t see minor registration fees as being a problem, when gun owners already pay for permits to own, to carry (concealed or for transport), to purchase or to sell firearms.
No, I wasn’t, actually. However, that’s not a fatal problem. I’m not suggesting that a national registry is a magic bullet (pardon the phrase) for solving crime or reducing gun violence. I’m suggesting that a widespread and convenient registry of firearms would aid law enforcement agencies in the investigation of crimes, and as a legal requirement would increase the difficulty of laundering firearms.
Where will I find it easier to buy a firearm that I can make untraceable? From someone at a gun show in Louisiana, who’ll give it to me for cash and a false name (so I can then file off the serial number and change the barrel), or from a licenced dealer with an inventory of registered firearms, who will either demand verifiably valid I.D. from me, or will have to dummy up his inventory records, or falsely report a theft, to sell to me under the table?
Are you suggesting that it’s no more difficult for the police to solve crimes with untraceable weapons than with traceable weapons?
I never suggested that we make no other efforts to reduce gun crime, or violent crime, or crime at all, for that matter. Nor have I suggested that we don’t try to deal with crime directly. Please feel free to suggest anything that you feel might meet these goals.
The gun is the means of committing the crime, and just as a drunk is more dangerous behind the wheel of a car, so is someone with violent criminal intent more dangerous with a semi-automatic rifle than with a baseball bat.
I’ve suggested a specific proposal that I believe would reduce the incidence of gun violence by reducing the supply of illegal weapons, and making the supply of legal weapons less useful in the commission of a crime.
According to you, I’ve demonstrated no greater restrictions than already exist. The only change I’ve proposed is the unification of existing gun law and permit procedures, which should simplify the process and close loopholes.
Remember, under this proposal, there are no different classes of weapons. There’s no waiting period. There’s no special permits to obtain. From any licenced dealer anywhere, you can buy any firearm he has to sell (and he can sell automatic weapons), just by showing verifiably valid I.D. You can walk out of the store with your purchase, loaded and tucked into your waistband. There’s a benefit that I think a lot of gun owners would prefer.
It creates a new class of criminals only for those people who do not co-operate with the implementation. For current gun owners, that means registering the firearms, which doesn’t have to be onerous if it’s carried out properly (e.g., your local police department, over a year long period, makes convenient arrangements with anyone who calls, to register each of your guns). Let the NRA do it: they’d be happy to drive to your house and copy the serial numbers down. If UPS can tell me, via their website, that my package was delivered five minutes ago to the receiving dock at my workplace, surely an easy means of registering firearms can be developed.
Once the proposal is implemented, it creates criminals only out of those people who break the law by purchasing illegal firearms (i.e., through someone other than a registered dealer) or by making a gun less identifiable (i.e., by filing off the serial number or swapping barrels around).
That’s why I specified, as part of the proposal, that all firearms would become available. That’s what the gun control lobby has to concede, that, a la Switzerland, it’s possible to have a heavily armed society with little gun violence. What the gun lobby has to concede is that the proper regulation of firearms can lead to a reduction in gun violence that removes a barrier to widespread gun ownership.
This is false. Here in New South Wales (Australia),
handguns had been registered for a long time, long guns
had never been. When they banned semi-automatic weapons,
the only exception was for handguns. That is, the only
semi-automatic weapons that were not banned were the ones
that were registered.
In other words, four out of five times a registration has led to a ban. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… “Them’s shitty odds.” 
(And a big hello to you, too, Mr. Lambert! It’s been a while since you’ve dropped by. How ya been?)
How, exactly would it stop criminals frome getting their hands on guns? If a criminal wants a gun, to rob a liquor store, or do a 'drive by"- do you think he goes down to a gunstore & buys one? No- he gets one by stealing it, or buying it from someone who HAS stolen it, or buying it from a 'source".
Ahh, but you say this will dissuade folks from selling their guns to criminals. True, but they already are. “Sources” get their guns by buying them with fake id’s, having 'straw men" buy them, smuggleing, or reporting them stolen. When you buy a gun NOW, they take down info, and if that gun is found- they will came ask the purchaser where that gun is.
And how will this Law let the police find more “unregistered” guns? They can’t search your house without a warrent, and carrying a gun, which is done by many criminals- is already illegal- but does not seem to dissuade them.
But you propose draconian penalties which will deter criminals from owning unregistered guns- will that work? If the DEATH penalty is a PROVEN non-deterance for murder, or even for pickpockets in the 19th century- how is LIFE a deterance? Harsh penalties are not, nor have they ever been a deterance. See- criminals mostly think they will never be causght- that is why they are criminals, you know. So, if they won’t be caught- no penalty can be a deterance. True- there are some Sociopaths & such that WANT to be caught- but again, penalties are no deterance. In fact, they could even be a “plus”.
Next- SCOTUS has ruled that Felons do not have to register THEIR guns- so the system only penalizes NON-Criminals. Great. :rolleyes:
Finally- many gunowners will not accept the Law, and will KNOW (in their heart-of-hearts)it is meant only as a smokescreen to “confiscate” their guns. They will not comply. In CA, some estimates show that only 10% of “assault gun” owners are complying with the registration law. Thus- 10’s of MILLIONS of new “lifers” in the Pen. Where will we build all these new prisons?
hansel- go back & read that thread Unclebeer mentions.
I just don’t buy it. In our justice system we try to make sure that the punishment fits the crime. Illegal posession of a firearm is not that big a criminal act. Who’s pocket was picked or who’s leg was broken? Nobody is harmed by the act and the punishment should reflect this. Sending someone to prison for 20 years to life for something that caused no harm is cruel.
Marc
Read the proposal a little more closely. All firearms would become available, even automatic weapons. The legal burden of purchasing and owning a firearm would be reduced, simplified, and unified across the country.
I’m not offering this proprosal as a tricky means of setting up a precondition for confiscation. I think confiscation would be more difficult following this scheme than before. The proposal is trying to give both sides what they want - more hassle free guns for gun owners, better safeguards to the gun control lobby. What’s explicitly excluded from the proposal is the possibility of removing all guns from society, now or in the future.
well, as the link i posted shows, germany allows registered guns, and britain currently allows some registered guns, and this is all without a constitutional right to bear arms. so that leaves…rwanda? i’m just glad fallen angel argued my point. in the previous thread, my opponents would just wait a few posts and then repeat ‘registration would lead to a gun ban.’
This isn’t entirely correct, zwaldd. All I said was that registration is a necessary component to a total gun ban and the confiscation of handguns by the government. I, at least, did not say that registration necessarily leads to a ban. Please do not misrepresent my statements.
Hansel, you’ve still not demonstrated a reasonable benefit to society. Giving the ability to purchase automatic weapons to the populace is not a benefit. Nor have you shown that registration keeps guns out of the hands of those who would use them in the commission of a crime. (Does automobile registration prevent unlicensed drivers from driving?) This is the way to reduce gun crime; prevent criminals from obtaining guns in the first place. Your plan does nothing until a crime is actually committed. If a gun is not used in a crime there’s no ethical reason for the government to have any interest in tracing it. And you keep telling us how simple and convenient and inexpensive this plan is going to be for law-abiding citizens; I have serious doubts in this regard. How “simple, convenient, and inexpensive” is your local auto license bureau? And I don’t even have to deal with them when I wanna loan someone my car.
I, however, have a much a simpler plan. Scrap registration altogether since it provides no discernable benefit, and is potentially subject to abuse by the government. Instead, when a criminal is convicted of a gun crime, we impose extremely stiff, and mandatory, sentences. This would accomplish everything you set out to do, since your scheme does nothing until a crime has been committed, with no penalties to law-abiding citizens. (Well, except for additional jail cells.) This addresses the ailment directly, rather than the symptom. For a plan of this nature that has been tried and works, see the NRA’s Project Exile. See, I can even demonstrate a benefit, which is something you cannot say of your plan.