And now that they have banned semi-automatic rifles and pump shotguns, how long do you seriously think it will be before handguns go away? My bet would be the next time some whack-job takes out his ex-girlfriend or co-workers.
Legislators and other victim disarmament proponents are very good at waiting until the furor from the opposition dies down before whipping up their own fires again.
Australia is a perfect example of incrementalism and classification. Keep the gun owners divided by attacking only a certain type of gun at any one time. By the time they get to whatever type a particular individual cares about, the attrition rate is too high to counter effectively. “First they came for the Jews, etc.”
About the link zwaldd posted, I would say that the banning of everything except .22 target pistols and duck guns proves my point rather than countering it.
As to the Germans getting their handguns back (sorta kinda), that was why I specified Nazi Germany.
The same thing is happening here, and these “common sense” proposals the victim disarmament clan keep spewing will make sure we end up the same way.
I, for one, am not willing to risk another single erosion of my freedoms, no matter how benign the proposal may appear to those who author it.
right you are uncle beer, my apologies. my statement should have specified ‘those that wanted to continue the argument that registration leads to a ban would just…’.
do you have a link for a non-biased assessment of that plan? if so, join me in my new thread and let’s take a look: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57888. i have some other ideas you might like as well. spoofe, fallenangel, daniel, let’s go. (sorry for the hijack, hansel - i didn’t want to distract from your proposal by posting more here.)
Well, I can’t point to this exact scheme being implemented in a parallel America, and succeeding. I can only point to other countries where there is gun registration, the citizens still own guns (countries with far more strict registration and bureaucratic requirements than I’ve suggested), and have very low levels of gun violence: Canada, Switzerland, Germany, for starters. All places where registration has not led to confiscation.
Other than that, I can only sketch out my premises, and allow you to take issue with them, so here goes:
[list=1]
[li]Other things being equal, a registered gun is more easily traced than an unregistered gun.[/li][li]Law enforcement generally finds the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving guns easier when the guns are traceable.[/li][li]Easier investigations and prosecutions equals more crimes solved and more criminals punished.[/li][li]Where the police are more effective in solving crimes involving guns, crime involving guns goes down. Ergo,[/li][li]If guns are effectively registered, they will contribute to crimes involving guns going down.[/li][/list=1]
Short of the gun confiscation that is constitutionally and pragmatically unacceptable, I see no way to do so besides reducing the availability of firearms that are available on the black market. Thus, my second argument about the benefit of registration:
[list=1]
[li]A gun is available on the black market if it may be sold without a record of the sale, and with no legal requirements being met (note that I’m not claiming that this is always illegal, currently).[/li][li]With a standard procedure for recording the sale of firearms, and with every sale required to be registered, then every legal firearm should be in the possession of the registered owner, and every registered owner should be able to account for his registered firearms. Ergo,[/li][li]Selling a firearm on the black market would expose the registered owner to severe legal liability. If the gun is recovered in the commission of a crime, it may be easily traced to the last registered owner, who must explain why it is not in his possession; in the event of an audit of the registered owner (or, more likely, licenced dealer), all registered inventory must be accounted for.[/li][li]It’s possible now to sell firearms on the black market with no practical liability (i.e., at a gun show in a state where there’s no requirement to record the sale or check the identity of the buyer, or between friends).[/li][li]Increasing the real liability of sellers for selling to the black market will decrease the number of sellers willing to do so.[/li][li] Decreasing the number of sellers will decrease the supply of available firearms on the black market, or make those that are available more expensive (it being a seller’s market), which will decrease the number of firearms available.[/li][/list=1]
Neither does your plan do anything until a crime is actually committed. However, we do agree on the need for harsh penalties involving gun crime.
I can’t imagine my proposal ever being enacted; I posted it as a means of taking the temperature of the combatants in the perennial gun debates here, to see how many were dogmatic ideologues about their position, and how many recognized a need for compromise to come to some agreement about the proper scope and handling of guns that involved challenging some of their precious assumptions.
I used to be a hardcore gun control fan, but I recognized that it was a position that would never be realized, and would never permit useful compromise to occur. Thus, my proposal: trade away all restrictions on firearms, in exchange for a registration system that will make enforcement easier and wither the black market for firearms, and stiff penalties for those who break the law.
When I got my driver’s licence here in Wisconsin (a very paperwork heavy state), it took my lunch hour to hand in my old one (Saskatchewan), pay the fee, and walk out with a new, photographic driver’s licence. I haven’t been back in two years.
When I bought a car, the dealer sent in the paperwork, and my plates arrived in the mail a couple months later (the dealer provided me with temp plates). Every two years, I have to take an hour to get my emissions checked so I have a form to send in with my plate renewal form, which is mailed to me - all I have to do is send in a check.
Considering the scale of their operations and the requirements I have to meet, I’d say they were pretty efficient and not unreasonably inconvenient. I don’t see why a gun registration bureaucracy would have to be worse.
As I agree on the need for harsh penalties for gun crimes, my proposal address both the ailment and the symptoms.
[list=1]
[li]Other things being equal, a registered gun is more easily traced than an unregistered gun.[/li][li]Law enforcement generally finds the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving guns easier when the guns are traceable.[/li][li]Easier investigations and prosecutions equals more crimes solved and more criminals punished.[/li][li]Where the police are more effective in solving crimes involving guns, crime involving guns goes down. Ergo,[/li][li]If guns are effectively registered, they will contribute to crimes involving guns going down.[/li][li]Selling a firearm on the black market would expose the registered owner to severe legal liability. If the gun is recovered in the commission of a crime, it may be easily traced to the last registered owner, who must explain why it is not in his possession; in the event of an audit of the registered owner (or, more likely, licenced dealer), all registered inventory must be accounted for.**[/li][/QUOTE]
The "benefit’ you mentioned would not stop gun owners from not trusting the new bill- they KNOW (whether they are right or not, does not matter) that as soon as another “columbine” occurts- the "jackboots’ will be breaking down their doors and their guns will be confiscated. And- they might very well be right.
As I mentioned in the other thread- you folks have somehow got this strange idea that being able to "trace’ the guns will help the police. Criminals do not do a “drive-by” and then LEAVE THE GUN AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. Having sat on the Grand Jury- i can tell you that not a single case came in front of us where there was a gun that needed tracing, or that the Police found a gun at the scene and was able to or wanted to trace it. Just does not happen. That’s what the “east river” is for. It is true, that in the case of one domestic shooting, the DA was able to mention that the suspect had a gun in that caliber once sold to him, but he claimed it had been stolen long ago. But there was no gun to “trace”. And even if a gun was found- the criminals do not carry guns traceable to themselves. Thus- except for the 1 in 10000 time we have a stupid & unlucky crook- registration will NOT lead to more crimes being solved. Again- PLEASE go back & read that other thread Unclebeer mentioned- this was solidly & completely refuted there.
Stolen guns- can be sold on the black market without a problem. Guns bought with fake ID’s can be sold. Guns smuggled in from other countries can be sold. Guns that really were not stolen, but were claimed to be- can be sold. NO “pro” criminal NOW uses a gun that can be ‘traced". How would the market “dry up”? Do you really think there is a large amount of more-or-less law abiding citizens that go out & buy guns (which are in their name, even now, you know) and then sell them to criminals? Guns sold “on the black market” could NOW be "traced’ to their original retail buyer-but it is usually useless. And it appears here, that if some poor schnook gets his gun stolen, but does not realize it until after it is used in a crime- he is going to jail. And, that is good- why?
In that other thread- it was IMHO conclusively shown there was no significant benefits to gun registration. Read it- and learn.
Well, on second thought, probably not (:)), but thanks for defending the 2nd Amendment so logically and eloquently (and repeatedly). I salute you.
One comment: Proponents of firearms registration seem to assume that registration is, in and of itself, inherently a good thing. They fail to understand that the problem isn’t how we go about it or convincing people it will not lead to a ban. The problem is that it is not universally understood to be beneficial.
Gun-owners without criminal intent see no connection between registration of our guns and reduction of criminal intent. Since there is no cause-and-effect between the two, one can only conclude that there must be some other motive behind the efforts to impair my rights without reaping some appreciable benefit to society.
Show me how the infringement of my right to bear arms benefits society, and I might be able to mount a logical criticism, and (remotely possible) even support for a registration scheme. Show me nothing apart from an effort to restrict my freedoms and I can’t reasonably be expected to support or approve of your efforts.
It forces criminals to locate weapons within their own sphere of associates. Thats easy, as long as hes local. Without registrations checks and waiting period any Joe Lunchbucket could stroll on into Bobs guns and pick up a gun then go commit a crime with it.
If I am a criminal on the run it makes it a little more difficult to obtain weapons since you cant just stroll into any store and write a check.
I realize it is still possible for these people to obtain weapons but not without going through the process of fake ID’s, BFSC in that ID, etc, etc.
These steps take time and are all crimes on their own that can result in being caught.
Just for perspective I compete in the IPSC handgun circut, I own guns, and I have no problem with the idea of registering and or having waiting periods. I do not feel that my rights have been injured in any way. I never needed to have my gun at home the day I purchased it…why would I?
Drach- The NRA, not to mention me- are in favor of “instant background checks”. Where you go in, show ID, fill out a form- they phone you in- and you can walk out with the gun, right then&there; if you check out. Few have a problem with this. By “registration”- they do not mean “registration upon original purchase”- they mean everyone has to bring in every gun they have- even if it was gramp’s springfield he used in WWI- fill out forms, pay fees, etc. And if you fail to do so- you go to prison.
The “waiting period” also has no purpose- unless of course they need to spend some time checking your background (maybe 1 in a hundred “instant” checks takes some time).
i’m glad to see there are more of us out there. my problem with project exile is that it places the responsiblity for obeying the law on those members of society who are the least likely to obey laws. it targets illegal guns, which as i understand it, are those possessed by felons, or those that are stolen. and while the project has demonstrated statistical success in virginia, i don’t see how it would work in areas that don’t regulate private gun transfers. also, as hansel pointed out, it is implemented in conjunction with an fbi gun tracing network which sounds to me like a form of registration. hansel’s registration program, like all effective laws, places the responsibility on those most likely to obey the law to share the effort of limiting the amount of guns available to criminals before they get a chance to use them. and while the absolute statistical impact this will have is uncertain, to dismiss it outright as not having any conceivable benefit is just being contrary.
An observation, having visited countries where everyone is armed to the teeth, including automatic weapons, where there is no registration of guns of any kind, I must say I found little attractive about them. Family violence, ludicrious escallation of simple disputes into exchanges of gunfire… (no, not the USA) Whereas Germany, GB are pleasant democracies.
What on earth is the attraction then?
(Side note: yes I know how to use guns, yes, I have in the past owned them. Find it boring really)
collounsbury, my man. author of the ‘collounsbury doctrine on racial discourse’.
you have to be very specific in a debate about guns in america if you want to keep the discussion on track. your question alludes to another aspect of american gun rhetoric - is a well regulated militia (as interpreted by the nra) really necessary to the security of a free state? whole other thread, my friend. whole other thread. extremely volatile subject.
