I meant “many” in relation to the number of people who would choose to ban cars. I meant that registration of cars is a different issue because we do not have a strong anti car movement lkek we have an anti handgun movement.
I don’t think that counting the number of gun ban folks is going to further this thread.
Who maintains the database? Who pays for the maintainance of this database?
How is the database accessed by a gun seller: on the phone to a live agent, via modem or via touch-tone menu system? Each method has serious drawbacks.
If private individuals can get access to the database to make transactions, then the security of the database is questionable (what’s to stop me from claiming I have a thousand guns and “selling” them to you in the database?) If they can’t access the system, then how are private sales accomplished? (Remember, one of Uncle Beer’s requirements is that whatever system you put in place must be “fast and accurate”.)
To continue: how is each person verified in the database? Is photo ID required? If so, how’s the photo ID verified? Fake ID is cheap and easy to get. If it’s not verified, what’s to stop me from lying about my name/address/etc? If you require each buyer and seller to have an ID, you’ve suddenly changed the system to a “register the gun owner” system which is outside of the original terms of the debate and poses serious privacy issues.
It seems as though you’re just glossing over some serious issues.
Fenris
Well, it will insofar as I’d like to see support for the contention that there are enough “many” people who would like to ban guns in order for the movement to ban guns to be considered strong.
Here is the problem Gad: Most people who want strict gun control would probably not consider themselves in favor of a ban. THey may say that they are ion favor of strict licensing, training and registration. In my mind, that is a movement to ban guns.
So the question is, who do you count as being for a ban and how do you count them? I honestly don’t know of any stats on this. Wouldn’t you agree that there are more people who want to ban handguns than those who want to ban automobiles? I think that this is a pretty safe assumption.
very simple. here’s beer’s “logic”:
because a total ban of handguns(a) requires registration (which has multiple possible purposes(abc)), then the purpose of registration(abc) must be to totally ban handguns(a).
fenris - in my scenario, private individuals don’t have direct access to the database. they file a form through the mail or in person at a government office. have you ever had to administer a computer database? it ain’t that hard. if i’m glossing over some issues it’s because i want to minimize the complexity of my posts. half the arguments i bring up are misunderstood or ignored as it is.
Zwald- can you, or anyone- show me how registration will significantly reduce violent crime? Even 5%? First- criminals do NOT have to register their guns. SCOTUS has held that requiring a Criminal to register his gun is against the 5th admendment. So- the only folks that would have to register are law-abiding citizens, and “would be” criminals.
Ok- let us concentrate on those 'would-be" criminals. You decide to start your “life of crime” by robbing a liqour store. If you have an “unregistered gun”(UG) at home- the police cannot search for it- thus they cannot arrest you for it. So gun registration will be useless there. “AHA, you say- but if the police see you “lurking” and search you, and find that UG- then they can arrest you, thus stopping the crime”. True- but thye ALREADY can arrest you, as CARRYING a concealed weapon, registered or not- is already a crime.
So, zwald- i am sorry- but no “lives will be saved” by registration. Sure, you can make up a “lifeboat case” of some unlikely combination of events that would have registration save ONE life- but you have to show that scenario likely enuf to cut crime significantly. heck- every year, a few folks are killed in “copycat killings”- which they learn of thru the media. Thus, a very few murders would be stopped if we banned all newspapers, radio & TV News. But not a significant amount. So “if it only saves ONE life” arguement is specious. Banning autos would save 10’s of thousands of lives. Banning peanuts would save a few every year. Banning alcohol would save… oh, they already tried that and it didn’t work…
In general, Gun control has no effect at all on violent crime. Got that? Areas with very strict gun control have about the same (if not more) violent crime that areas with little control. (We are talking the USA, here, folks). Now, I am not aginst gun control laws all the time. If you can show me one that will reduce violent crime- without putting more law-abiding citzens in jail that it helps- I am all for it.
And let us not get off into the debate over whether or not registration will lead to confiscation. Generally, it has- but that does not matter. Even if it did not, the cost to the tax-paying public, and the erosion of rights of the law-abiding gun-owning public would far outwiegh the negligable reduction in crime. And, i beleive that folks who push gun registration KNOW that registration is useless in reducing crime. Thus- their only motive can be the banning or confiscation of all handguns- or they are naive beyond belief.
Autos are registered to collect TAX on them, so that auto owners can help pay for the cost of roads etc. So there is no similarity.
save a few what?
But he is not saying that, you inferred it. He merely points out that registration is a necessary first step. If the next covert step was to ban, step 1 (registration) would be in place. Perfectly logical. That does not mean that registration can’t include other purposes (yet to be convincingly useful, IMO).
And banning peanuts would save countless lives to those who are physically unable to administer the Heimlich Maneuver to themselves and choke to death. And have you seen the headlines reporting the death toll from victims slipping on shells at sporting events? 
My general knowledge of the 5th Amendment–you’re talking right against self-incrimination here, correct?–says that statement is hogwash. Please provide a citation.
So your argument is amazingly circular. You’re saying that an analogy to cars doesn’t work because there are a lot more people who want to ban guns than who want to ban cars, but then you define the movement to ban guns as including people in favor of licensing, training, and registration–even though cars themselves already require licenses, training, and registration. By your logic, then, there is a substantial movement in this country to ban guns–so substantial, in fact, that they’ve already accomplished the preliminary objectives. Huh?
Ya see what I’m saying? You can’t, absent any other evidence, count people in favor of gun owner licensing as being part of a movement to ban guns unless you count people in favor of driver licensing as being part of a movement to ban cars. Personally, I think neither’s the case, and the movements to ban both guns and cars in this country are, in my opinion, comparatively miniscule.
The last full sentence of my first paragraph, of course, should read like the following:
Please mentally cut and paste.
wrath
i inferred it because he (and others at this point) implied it. why else would he have included it in this argument?
but nobody suggested it was. why confound the argument with straw men unless your whole position is, itself, straw?
a quick note from someone trying to get caught up to speed:
you can’t compare car registration with handgun registration. first of all, we don’t have a constitutional right to drive a car. second, cars/vehicles are used (amoung other things)for people to get to and from work - footnote: the economy.
another item of note in the “saving lives” column: whoever (unclebeer?)said registration of hand guns would cost the lives of the poor who cannot afford the fee involved and would therefore be without some sort of cannon to defend their homes from the barbarian hordes (paraphrase), are you serious? you are planning on saving lives by arming everyone? (i know i have made an outrageous exaggeration but the original point was a bit outrageous)
Afraid he’s right, MG. The case is Haynes v. U.S., 90 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722 (1968). Conclusion of the Court: “We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.”
Read this article for an analysis of the case.
I don’t believe you can interpolate that the “pro-car registration” camp wants to ban cars becuase there is no “car control inc.” movement putting pressures on congress to enact “car control” measures and restrict the freedoms of car owners. Thus, one may conclude, since car registration laws are in place, the car registration movement (if there ever was one) has completed its task and has thus disbanded.
But gun control and crime continue to be serious issues. IIRC, there has been a “crime bill” passed in every session of congress for the last 30 years or so to address the crime rate and enact counter measures, like adding police and putting controls on handguns. There continue to be pressures put on by groups like HCI to pass more and more restrictive laws, like Maryland’s shell casing law. The question is as has been from the OP: what do you seek to accomplish with handgun registration? What is the ultimate goal? If it is to reduce crime, and you pass this bill or enact that law, and crime does not diminish, what is the next bill or law to be passed? Is a ban or confiscation notout of the question?
Well, can we add another assumption to this debate, so as to get rid of the slippery slope argument? Can we assume that the registration of handguns is not an attempt, or tool to confiscate guns? Let’s take the registration of handguns just as that, and assume no ulterior motive.
Catbiker, I presume your point is based on something along the lines of what was discussed in this threadThe latest in gun control from Australia . Please read it through. I think that you will find that the locals did a reasonable job debunking the argument.
I don’t get involved in these debates because I don’t understand the U.S. gun culture, it ain’t my country and it ain’t my business. What does get me a bit riled is when this sort of misinformation and flawed analysis is packaged up for U.S. domestic consumption as an example of cause and effect pertaining to the U.S. gun debate.
Please don’t use American constructs where they don’t apply.
Again, let us put the question of whether or not gun registration will lead to confiscation aside, (or start another thread).
Show me how gun registration will lead to a significant reduction in violent crime. I cannot think of ANY normal situation where gun registration would lead to a reduction in violent crime.
Minty- Max has the right cite- (thanks max). You see, if you are a felon, you cannot OWN a gun, thus if you have to register that gun- then you are admitting that you iwn a gun, and thus are a criminal. 5th admend. Pretty solid dec, too.
zwald- banning peanuts would save LIVES, of course- what were we discussing? P-nuts are prone to a mold than some are violently allergic to, and even a small trace can cause a violent attack. Note on many candy product, especially those with a “peanut” & “non-Pnut” version- "may contain traces of Peanuts. Sees discontinued their peanut lolly for that reason.
So- again- a challenge to the pro-registration folks. Show us how registration, which will: cost millions, impact the rights of gunowners, and subject otherwise lawabiding folks to arrest- will reduce violent crime, by a significant amount. Because “slippery slope” or not- it is not worth it unless it will reduce violent crime by a significant amount. AFAIK- even the supporters can’t say as much. Heck- show me how ANY gun control laws have reduced crime.
I went to the thread and read it. I stand corrected. Australians do not want nor need guns and destroying personal property is condoned.
I see that from that thread why you say what you do.
I met a Canadian couple once and they said something I thought might now be relevant to this subject of the US of A vs England, Canada or Australia. " You Yanks had people before government, the people went out to the frontiers and the laws followed. We had government before we had the people on the frontier." I can see that this is to some extent true IMO.
Being an American I just have a hard time understanding the way people think that a person is not allowed to protect them selves. I guess rape, robbery, (robbery, you are present vs burglary, you are not present), murder do not happen in those countries. And if they do, it is just too bad that you are a victim. Can you kill a criminal in your home who has killed your child with an illegal gun by hitting him with a cricket bat? What happens to you if you kill him with an unregistered gun?