Handgun Registration

Great Debates
101

here is a perfect example of my problem with this debate. i bring up point(A), that there are only two states with registration laws. i pre-emptively answer objection(B), that one of those states has the highest crime rate, with explanation©:

i come back the next day to see that someone has posted objection(B), when what we really need is either a concession that i may have a point, or objection(D) such as ‘well, without backup stats, there’s no way to predict if registration will work.’ actually answer(E) has been provided for this, which is that registration would be a good start on the road to compiling meaningful stats, so we’re really on to objection(F), like ‘we don’t need meaningful stats to bear arms, it’s our constitutional right.’

on a related note, have you seen the price of a 357 magnum these days? oshman’s has them for $750! talk about an infringement on my right to own one!

102

However- IF registration would/could reduce violent crime by a signifcant amount- then we would expect to see SOME results in areas with registration. Of course- there would be a greater result if applied to all states- but there should be some detectable result. There is not.

But- how about my objections to your “amkie it easier to track guns used in crime” theory? Can you refute them?

Argueing the debating style of your opponents is simply dodging the question.

103

if by detectable you mean documented stats one way or the other, then i agree with you. as i stated earlier, i could not find any documentation of gun crime statistics before and after registration laws went into effect.

it’s not dodging the question when we’re debating in a written format and the whole transcript of the debate is available at the click of your mouse. from my debate format model, you’re asking question©, when i’ve already supplied answer(E) to objection (D). which can be found at the very end of page 1 and the beginning of page 2. the gist of it was holding the gun owner responsible for the registration of the gun in the event of a sale. if a retailer does not verify that the registration process was completed, then he becomes responsible for what happens with that gun. he could be found criminally negligent if the gun used in a crime is registered to him. not guilty of the gun crime, mind you, but guilty of negligence. same goes for private sellers. they would need to make sure the registration is transferred to the buyer to avoid responsibility. the only reason they would want to circumvent the process is to supply an anonymous gun for use in crime. yes they can claim the gun was stolen. if the prosecution can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is false, then the seller is not prosecuted. this process would greatly reduce the number of untraceable guns in circulation and at the very least, allow a track back to the original owner who can tell them who he sold the gun to. so it’s not a matter of having to depend on stupid criminals to use registered guns, but responsible citizens to reduce the proliferation of unregistered guns. yes, it will require an effort on the part of law abiding citizens, but i consider the benefits well worth the effort.

now, there were some further questions raised which i already answered, so i beg you to please read the posts on page two before responding and if necessary, post objections to my unaddressed responses.

104

Did I see someone mention page 2?

If you kept your wallet on the TV and the same Guy stole it would you be responsible if he used the money to buy drugs.

Why do you think that someone who has done nothing wrong should have to register a piece of machined steel.

I don’t know and I ain’t gonna go back and look to see if it has been mentioned before but that piece of steel can do nothing without a person deliberately,in this discussion at least,pointing and firing it.

If I were to mention a weapon that has undoubtably taken more lives than a gun would you spearhead an attempt to regulate it?

105

I’m sorry zwaldd the above question is for you.

106

how about this for gun control:

  1. use a gun in commission of a crime, even a misdemeanor, one gets 15-25 years mandatory. I think that that is even too light.

  2. Cops can use any weapon they want, a Tec-9, an Uzi, an AK, whatever.

  3. Felons caught with an illegal handgun, mandatory life in prison. Way to light for me.

  4. It is the responsibility of all gun owners to keep a census of the guns they own, and maintain its security.

Chew on these, y’all.

107

Yes, definitely. Something along those lines, anyway. Use a gun in a crime, that’s a mandatory 5-years added to whatever other sentence you get. Actually shoot the gun, 10 years. Murder someone with a gun, instant life imprisonment.

Seriously, the way to stop bad crimes from happening is to deliver strict punishment.

Also, yes. Provide them with training, of course. Standard sidearm should still be their pistol, but they should have much heavier weaponry available, if necessary.

In Los Angelese county, there was a bank robbery a while back where the perpetrators had automatic weaponry. Supposedly, the cops had to go to a local gun dealer to get automatic weapons to retaliate appropriately.

Again, damn straight. Part of their punishment is the forfeiture of certain rights. If they again violate what rights are left to them, that demonstrates a harsher punishment is needed. While I hate to sound brutal, you won’t solve any problems by coddling people all the time.

Responsibility? The R-word? Wow, I never hear that, ever! Especially when applied to individuals.

I just want to repeat that… “It is the responsibility of all gun owners”… NOT the responsibility of the Government, NOT the responsibility of those that are afraid of/don’t know anything about guns.

108

yes

no.

look everybody! it’s question(A)!

there’s a reason it hasn’t been mentioned before. i can’t believe it’s being mentioned now.

who’s to say i haven’t already?

that’s ok. just don’t let it happen again.

109

I think that the “registration could lead to confiscation” cannot be separated from this debate because, as someone else pointed out in an earlier Gun Control/2 Ad. thread, the legitimate concerns of both sides of the issue must be addressed.

Dismissing the “registration/confiscation” link as paranoid drivel and slippery slope fallacy is just as egregious as dismissing the legitimate concern of a parent/spouse over some nut-job bringing a gun to school/work and shooting their loved ones as paranoid drivel.

That registration has the potential to be abused is a concern that pro-gun types here have voiced, and that anti-gun types routinely dismiss.

Until they (anti-gunners) acknowledge our concern, and state and operate in good faith to mitigate such concerns, no rational discourse is to be had, either here or at the national level.

Well, at least no rational, plausible solution is to be arrived at here.

There are plenty of intelligent moderates from both sides willing to work together to arrive at reasonable compromises; what those compromises are, we have yet to see.

But behind these moderates are progressive layers of extremists ready to hijack the compromise to their purposes, carrying the whole process, one-way-or-the-other, into the realms of extremism.

HIJACK

Which is why the NRA (and I’m a Life Member, btw, and a contributing member of the Second Amendment Foundation, as well) is so adamant about no further compromise, and I concur.

The NRA is not about the unrestricted ownership of any and all types of ordinance. This is HCI espoused and media-fueled propoganda.

The NRA is about working with current laws and law-enforcement agencies, prosecutors and legislatures to enforce current legislation to keep firearms out of criminal’s hands, prosecute criminals who use firearms in the commission of crimes, and to educate gun owners about the safe and responsible handling, use and storage of firearms, which is their original charter.

If and when we conclude that the fully-enacted current legislation is inadequate, then, and only then, should we re-examine the laws to see where we can correct the problem without creating unnecessary restrictions or placing undue burdens on law-abiding gun-owners.

Hijack

Any registration mechanism will invariably include owner information, even if the legislation, agency charter and avowed purpose is only to track just the firearm.

That this information could concievably, regardless of the probability, be used at some later time by more ardent gun-control factions to incrementally enact bans and confiscation schemes (as has happened in New York and is currently happening in California) is our legitimate concern.

This has had the effect of justifying, at least to us gun-owners if not the greater public, our concerns and suspicions of any registration scheme, no matter how well intentioned or reasonably moderate the author is.

By dismissing it as paranoid drivel and slippery slope fallacy, engaging in heated rhetoric and labeling gun-owners and painting them negatively with unflattering stereotypes, the gun-control types only make our suspicions worse, and undermine the legitimate, good-faith efforts of moderates to arrive at common-sense, working solutions to the problems of firearm violence in our society.

110

for what it’s worth (not much, probably), i want to recant a previous argument i made.

in a flurry of twisted logic, i implied that if a well-regulated militia isn’t necessary to the security of a free state, then gun registration shouldn’t be prohibited.

the only thing that can be unquestionably concluded if it can be proven that a well-regulated militia is or isn’t necessary to the security of a free state is that a free state requires or does not require a well-regulated militia for its security.

whether or not there should be a right to bear arms or a registration law cannot be determined simply based on that conclusion. note for the logic impaired - i’m not denying that there is a right to bear arms or suggesting it should be modified or taken away. this is a pre-emptive concession in case someone decides to read my posts before arguing them.

111

Zwaldd,Bud
You have an attitude let me tell you.
for what it’s worth (not much, probably), i want to recant a previous argument i made.

Nuff said

112

Extank made a very good post.

I wonder why the most ardent seem to have a hard time staying in the guidlines of the question and then whine about others debating skills?

Wish I could write what I think. LOL Fingers don’t work that way. :frowning:

113

Hmmm
Just musing here

I can’t find where he answered question A

quote:

Why do you think that someone who has done nothing wrong should have to register a piece of machined steel.

look everybody! it’s question(A)!

quote:

If I were to mention a weapon that has undoubtably taken more lives than a gun would you spearhead an attempt to regulate it?

who’s to say i haven’t already?
Well it would seem pretty silly to start registration of knifes. The handgun has only been in existance for 150 years or so.We seem to have gotten along pretty well without registering or banning this evil weapon known as the knife.

114

OK- so we can all agree- that SO FAR- gun registration has not been SHOWN to reduce violant crime.

Now- we do not have to worry about retailers- ever since 1964- RETAILERS have had to record & make available to the ATF, etc- records of who they sold guns too- so registration would not change that. Or be of any help. Now, let us say that someone owns a pistol- and sells it to a known criminal- they will either “phoney-up” the “registration”, or claim the gun is stolen. Now, let us say a criminal wants to BUY a gun from a dupe- a law-abiding citizen (who does not want to sell the gun to a crook). He will either use a fake ID (very easily available), or use his own- then claim the gun was stolen. However- this does not answer the basic question- how often do you think that the criminal LEAVES THE GUN AT THE SCENE SO THAT IDing THE GUN WILL HELP THE POLICE TRACK THE CROOK? In MY experience- not once. Talking to my freinds- who include a Superior Court Judge, and a Police Captain- very rarely. Looking at crime stats- not a significant amount. So, in the one crime in a thousand that the crook drops the gun at the scene- ie a very clumsy crook; you would also have to assume a crook who cannot either find someone in the business of selling “hot” guns- or can’t get a fake ID- ie a very stupid crook. So we have to assume a clumsy AND a stupid crook. Ie, maybe one time in 10,000 would registration help to convict/find a criminal. So- not a significant reduction in violent crime. Thus- just the cost & bother would FAR FAR outwiegh any potential crime reduction benefit. Not to mention all the 'dupes" who sold their gun (unknowingly) to a criminal- who will likely be arrested & hassled by the Police.

115

This horse is dead.

116

the horse was shot! here’s the gun sheriff beer. i found it buried in the manure. let me run a check on the registration…it’s registered to a…to a…

hugh jass? what the hell?!

117

Thanks. I love you, too.

118

that wasn’t supposed to be a dig - it was a joke. someone faked the name on the registration. it’s a simpsons reference.