CDZ Another attempt. What does registering guns for law abiding gun owners do to stop criminals

[2aguy]

Here is another chance for those who support gun control to explain exactly what registering guns accomplishes.......

According to the Supreme Court Decision, Haynes v United States, actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their Right against self incrimination...only law abiding people would have to register their guns...

So.....what is so magical about registering guns, except knowing who has them so they can later be confiscated?

 

[danielpalos]

Here is another chance for those who support gun control to explain exactly what registering guns accomplishes.......

According to the Supreme Court Decision, Haynes v United States, actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their Right against self incrimination...only law abiding people would have to register their guns...

So.....what is so magical about registering guns, except knowing who has them so they can later be confiscated?

the registry we need is the militia registry.

 

[Oddball]

Nothing....Zero....Zippo...Skiff....Zilch....Nada...

The law will never protect anyone against the actions of criminals.

I'm here to help.

 

[harmonica]

if the guns are stolen--which a lot are--it helps if that gun is used in a crime:
helps control/provide data where/when/etc
helps provide a chain of ownership/etc

what do pro-gunners always say???!!!''criminals will get guns no matter what'''
so this will help /better help to find out how they get them!!!!!

 

[Toronado3800]

Here is another chance for those who support gun control to explain exactly what registering guns accomplishes.......

According to the Supreme Court Decision, Haynes v United States, actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their Right against self incrimination...only law abiding people would have to register their guns...

So.....what is so magical about registering guns, except knowing who has them so they can later be confiscated?

Haven' we done this before? The new part I'll throw in is the NRA signed off on all of this with their worship of the Patriot Act and the folling generation of assaults on our civil liberties not to mention the registration of our cars generations ago, the same cars YOU said are deadly just like guns

Registering guns is a long term play to slow the flow of guns into the black market. It is one more (lazy) way of making it more difficult for me to buy a gun and "loose" it by selling it to felon cousin Eddie who can't legally own one.

The NRA and their silence on private surveilance like your Facebook App, Echo or Dot have already let the government have free access to who has what guns or googles what gun accessories or orders what ammo or parts.

Think Homeland uses a gets a warrant to search Google, Amazon or Ebay information on you or they just use their last blanket warrant issued by secret Judge Homeland?

Your ship has sailed. Maybe if you did register them at least folks would realize what pistol they had to hide to fight against the drone assault.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[DandyDonovan]

"everyone should have to register their guns so the government can track them if they need to"

"you can't ask people if they are citizens in a census , absolutely ridiculous that the government wants to keep track of illegal people and make sure they aren't being used to assign representation in Congress"

 

[danielpalos]

Muster the militia until we have no security problems.

 

[Likkmee]

It offfers the same positive benefits as making drugs or stealing illegal,

 

[2aguy]

if the guns are stolen--which a lot are--it helps if that gun is used in a crime:
helps control/provide data where/when/etc
helps provide a chain of ownership/etc

what do pro-gunners always say???!!!''criminals will get guns no matter what'''
so this will help /better help to find out how they get them!!!!!

Actually, no it doesn't.

From Canada's attempt to register just 15 million long guns....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------
And now addressing the myth that registering guns will help the police with crime.......



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[Toronado3800]

if the guns are stolen--which a lot are--it helps if that gun is used in a crime:
helps control/provide data where/when/etc
helps provide a chain of ownership/etc

what do pro-gunners always say???!!!''criminals will get guns no matter what'''
so this will help /better help to find out how they get them!!!!!

Actually, no it doesn't.

From Canada's attempt to register just 15 million long guns....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------
And now addressing the myth that registering guns will help the police with crime.......



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

I'm going to totally remove the tires from all the automobiles in the world because sometimes tires go flat or have problems.

 

[2aguy]

if the guns are stolen--which a lot are--it helps if that gun is used in a crime:
helps control/provide data where/when/etc
helps provide a chain of ownership/etc

what do pro-gunners always say???!!!''criminals will get guns no matter what'''
so this will help /better help to find out how they get them!!!!!

Actually, no it doesn't.

From Canada's attempt to register just 15 million long guns....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------
And now addressing the myth that registering guns will help the police with crime.......



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

I'm going to totally remove the tires from all the automobiles in the world because sometimes tires go flat or have problems.

You have just summarized the anti gun argument in it's entirety........ they want to disarm all law abiding citizens because some criminals use guns to commit crimes. Thank you for that summation.....

 

[Toronado3800]

if the guns are stolen--which a lot are--it helps if that gun is used in a crime:
helps control/provide data where/when/etc
helps provide a chain of ownership/etc

what do pro-gunners always say???!!!''criminals will get guns no matter what'''
so this will help /better help to find out how they get them!!!!!

Actually, no it doesn't.

From Canada's attempt to register just 15 million long guns....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------
And now addressing the myth that registering guns will help the police with crime.......



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

I'm going to totally remove the tires from all the automobiles in the world because sometimes tires go flat or have problems.

You have just summarized the anti gun argument in it's entirety........ they want to disarm all law abiding citizens because some criminals use guns to commit crimes. Thank you for that summation.....

The point isn't lost but it goes both ways. You always make posts saying that since there still is crime, we shouldn't have laws against crime. The logic is lost on me.

The root of the gun problem now is, the gun lobby is narrowly focused on protecting their toy right and frequently focused on giving power to government to take away the rights of others. So, the gun rights groups are watching their rights erode at the hands of the monster they watched and fed while it was taking rights from others.

 

[2aguy]

if the guns are stolen--which a lot are--it helps if that gun is used in a crime:
helps control/provide data where/when/etc
helps provide a chain of ownership/etc

what do pro-gunners always say???!!!''criminals will get guns no matter what'''
so this will help /better help to find out how they get them!!!!!

Actually, no it doesn't.

From Canada's attempt to register just 15 million long guns....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------
And now addressing the myth that registering guns will help the police with crime.......



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

I'm going to totally remove the tires from all the automobiles in the world because sometimes tires go flat or have problems.

You have just summarized the anti gun argument in it's entirety........ they want to disarm all law abiding citizens because some criminals use guns to commit crimes. Thank you for that summation.....

The point isn't lost but it goes both ways. You always make posts saying that since there still is crime, we shouldn't have laws against crime. The logic is lost on me.

The root of the gun problem now is, the gun lobby is narrowly focused on protecting their toy right and frequently focused on giving power to government to take away the rights of others. So, the gun rights groups are watching their rights erode at the hands of the monster they watched and fed while it was taking rights from others.

No, I have never said that, not once. I have stated over and over again that we have all the laws we need to deal with criminals who use guns illegally. That is true. I have also stated that our problem is not law abiding citizens who own and carry guns for self defense. Our last 26 years show that as more Americans own and carry guns, it hasn't increased the gun crime rate, the gun murder rate or the violent crime rate, in fact, the opposite has happened. Our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, our gun crime rate has gone down 75%, our violent crime rate has gone down 72%........

How do you explain that?


My argument, and the argument of most pro 2nd Amendment supporters is to actually lock up and keep locked up violent criminals. They are the ones who use guns over and over again, get arrested and then released, in democrat party controlled inner city areas. They then go out and commit the gun crime, not law abiding gun owners. You guys then say we need yet another law, to focus on law abiding gun owners so that criminals won't use their illegally possessed guns to commit more gun crimes.....rinse and repeat.....

It is you guys who focus new laws on people who do not use guns to commit crimes...then you come back to make new laws when those previous laws don't stop criminals from using guns...because you focused on the people not breaking the law, and expected that to actually work.

Our solution, again? Lock up people who use guns to commit crimes for long periods...Japan locks up criminals caught with guns for 10 years on a first offense...if the gun has bullets in it, they add years on to the sentence.....meanwhile, here? The democrat party keeps reducing the sentences of known, repeat gun offenders....

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Toronado3800]

if the guns are stolen--which a lot are--it helps if that gun is used in a crime:
helps control/provide data where/when/etc
helps provide a chain of ownership/etc

what do pro-gunners always say???!!!''criminals will get guns no matter what'''
so this will help /better help to find out how they get them!!!!!

Actually, no it doesn't.

From Canada's attempt to register just 15 million long guns....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------
And now addressing the myth that registering guns will help the police with crime.......



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

I'm going to totally remove the tires from all the automobiles in the world because sometimes tires go flat or have problems.

You have just summarized the anti gun argument in it's entirety........ they want to disarm all law abiding citizens because some criminals use guns to commit crimes. Thank you for that summation.....

The point isn't lost but it goes both ways. You always make posts saying that since there still is crime, we shouldn't have laws against crime. The logic is lost on me.

The root of the gun problem now is, the gun lobby is narrowly focused on protecting their toy right and frequently focused on giving power to government to take away the rights of others. So, the gun rights groups are watching their rights erode at the hands of the monster they watched and fed while it was taking rights from others.

No, I have never said that, not once. I have stated over and over again that we have all the laws we need to deal with criminals who use guns illegally. That is true. I have also stated that our problem is not law abiding citizens who own and carry guns for self defense. Our last 26 years show that as more Americans own and carry guns, it hasn't increased the gun crime rate, the gun murder rate or the violent crime rate, in fact, the opposite has happened. Our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, our gun crime rate has gone down 75%, our violent crime rate has gone down 72%........

How do you explain that?


My argument, and the argument of most pro 2nd Amendment supporters is to actually lock up and keep locked up violent criminals. They are the ones who use guns over and over again, get arrested and then released, in democrat party controlled inner city areas. They then go out and commit the gun crime, not law abiding gun owners. You guys then say we need yet another law, to focus on law abiding gun owners so that criminals won't use their illegally possessed guns to commit more gun crimes.....rinse and repeat.....

It is you guys who focus new laws on people who do not use guns to commit crimes...then you come back to make new laws when those previous laws don't stop criminals from using guns...because you focused on the people not breaking the law, and expected that to actually work.

Our solution, again? Lock up people who use guns to commit crimes for long periods...Japan locks up criminals caught with guns for 10 years on a first offense...if the gun has bullets in it, they add years on to the sentence.....meanwhile, here? The democrat party keeps reducing the sentences of known, repeat gun offenders....

You don't know what you are talking about.

OK, so you never have, and more importantly never will again say its pointless to outlaw something criminals do because criminals are criminals?

 

[2aguy]

Actually, no it doesn't.

From Canada's attempt to register just 15 million long guns....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------
And now addressing the myth that registering guns will help the police with crime.......



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

I'm going to totally remove the tires from all the automobiles in the world because sometimes tires go flat or have problems.

You have just summarized the anti gun argument in it's entirety........ they want to disarm all law abiding citizens because some criminals use guns to commit crimes. Thank you for that summation.....

The point isn't lost but it goes both ways. You always make posts saying that since there still is crime, we shouldn't have laws against crime. The logic is lost on me.

The root of the gun problem now is, the gun lobby is narrowly focused on protecting their toy right and frequently focused on giving power to government to take away the rights of others. So, the gun rights groups are watching their rights erode at the hands of the monster they watched and fed while it was taking rights from others.

No, I have never said that, not once. I have stated over and over again that we have all the laws we need to deal with criminals who use guns illegally. That is true. I have also stated that our problem is not law abiding citizens who own and carry guns for self defense. Our last 26 years show that as more Americans own and carry guns, it hasn't increased the gun crime rate, the gun murder rate or the violent crime rate, in fact, the opposite has happened. Our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, our gun crime rate has gone down 75%, our violent crime rate has gone down 72%........

How do you explain that?


My argument, and the argument of most pro 2nd Amendment supporters is to actually lock up and keep locked up violent criminals. They are the ones who use guns over and over again, get arrested and then released, in democrat party controlled inner city areas. They then go out and commit the gun crime, not law abiding gun owners. You guys then say we need yet another law, to focus on law abiding gun owners so that criminals won't use their illegally possessed guns to commit more gun crimes.....rinse and repeat.....

It is you guys who focus new laws on people who do not use guns to commit crimes...then you come back to make new laws when those previous laws don't stop criminals from using guns...because you focused on the people not breaking the law, and expected that to actually work.

Our solution, again? Lock up people who use guns to commit crimes for long periods...Japan locks up criminals caught with guns for 10 years on a first offense...if the gun has bullets in it, they add years on to the sentence.....meanwhile, here? The democrat party keeps reducing the sentences of known, repeat gun offenders....

You don't know what you are talking about.

OK, so you never have, and more importantly never will again say its pointless to outlaw something criminals do because criminals are criminals?

I never have...I have said that gun registration is stupid, universal background checks are stupid, magazine limits are stupid and any number of other things are stupid since their sole purpose is to make it more difficult for law abiding people to own and carry guns........while doing nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters.

What stops criminals? Locking them up for long periods of time when they are caught using a gun for an illegal act, or if they are a felon and are caught in possession of an illegal gun. If we focus on those two types of criminal, we will lower the crime rate. Anything else is merely anti gunners acting out on their irrational fear of guns and gun owners.

 

[DandyDonovan]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

 

[PredFan]

Here is another chance for those who support gun control to explain exactly what registering guns accomplishes.......

According to the Supreme Court Decision, Haynes v United States, actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their Right against self incrimination...only law abiding people would have to register their guns...

So.....what is so magical about registering guns, except knowing who has them so they can later be confiscated?

In a related story, newly elected Illinois governor Prickster, just signed a bill into law that requires gun sellers to be licensed. They are calling it gun control. Can anyone tell us how that stops crime?

 

[anynameyouwish]

Here is another chance for those who support gun control to explain exactly what registering guns accomplishes.......

According to the Supreme Court Decision, Haynes v United States, actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their Right against self incrimination...only law abiding people would have to register their guns...

So.....what is so magical about registering guns, except knowing who has them so they can later be confiscated?

As a lib/prog who believes in every law abiding citizen's right to own guns (pistols, rifles, semi-automatics) I like the idea of REGISTRATION accompanied by SAFETY TRAINING!...

kinda like when you got your license to drive a car....

I would even allow for non-military (citizens) to train with military/government experts on the care, use and handling of deadlier weapons. (tanks, for example).

But you couldn't own one.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Here is another chance for those who support gun control to explain exactly what registering guns accomplishes.......

According to the Supreme Court Decision, Haynes v United States, actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their Right against self incrimination...only law abiding people would have to register their guns...

So.....what is so magical about registering guns, except knowing who has them so they can later be confiscated?

As a lib/prog who believes in every law abiding citizen's right to own guns (pistols, rifles, semi-automatics) I like the idea of REGISTRATION accompanied by SAFETY TRAINING!...

kinda like when you got your license to drive a car....

I would even allow for non-military (citizens) to train with military/government experts on the care, use and handling of deadlier weapons. (tanks, for example).

But you couldn't own one.

Driving is a privilege , gun ownership a right

Thought I'm not sure I would agree with that, it is our current thought.