CDZ Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

[320 Years of History]

Doesn't thin in substance already exist? About the only real difference between what exists now and a so-called national registry is that nobody has bothered to integrate the data held in the various state registries into one place. That basically means one must cull through data in 50 state registries of gun ownership rather than looking on one national one. It seems to me that getting the information is just a matter of how long it'll take and how much it'll thus cost to do so.

...
Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?

Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Read the OP again, slowly.

There today exist all manners of lists and repositories of information about citizens and residents. That information can be used for good or bad ends.

Red:
I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.

Blue:
Oh the wonders of information stored in integrated databases....

One purpose is that when a gun used in a crime is found, there's an immediate place to go to determine whether the registered and lawful owner of it reported it lost/stolen or transferred (gift or sale) to another individual, assuming that owner isn't the person who used it to commit a crime. Then persons who fail to communicate the mode of disposition of their firearms can be held accountable.

Another use, one that won't manifest immediately, but over a few years would, is that recovered guns can be identified and checked against the list of original owners. It may, it may not, be that there appears a pattern of one or several original purchasers' guns consistently make their way into the criminal sphere. Realizing that would give law enforcement officials a plausible basis for investigating further.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.

Agree. I call it Speculation Fallacy, more formally known as Slippery Slope.

 

[Dhara]

Not in favor of a gun registry, national or otherwise.

It's no one's business how many or what kind of firearms I own.

It is if they're on the receiving end of a bullet... I mean it can't get much more personal than that.

Think about it.

LOL.....Pogo thinks criminals will register their guns.

Link to where I said that is ................ where?












Exactly. Learn to read.

If you end up getting shot most likely you deserved it,or it will be at the hands of a criminal who of course wont be registering his stolen firearm.

This post presents a perfect example of a person who should not have firearms.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not in favor of a gun registry, national or otherwise.

It's no one's business how many or what kind of firearms I own.

It is if they're on the receiving end of a bullet... I mean it can't get much more personal than that.

Think about it.

LOL.....Pogo thinks criminals will register their guns.

Link to where I said that is ................ where?












Exactly. Learn to read.

If you end up getting shot most likely you deserved it,or it will be at the hands of a criminal who of course wont be registering his stolen firearm.

This post presents a perfect example of a person who should not have firearms.

How so?
Or you just letting the shit flow from your mouth?

 

[jon_berzerk]

This is the REAL ISSUE behind Obama's federal background check scheme. In order to screen out people on no-fly lists, etc. ALL gun purchasers will have to be reported to the FBI, who will have to maintain a list of such purchases.

Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?

Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

nope not a chance of it

 

[saveliberty]

National registration is not a good idea. Guns are for defending yourself against an unjust federal government Constitutionally speaking. Each state can determine how to best address this issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?"

Of course not, nor does anyone of merit or consequence.

 

[2aguy]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Guns are not cars….guns keep the powerful in check. That is why dictators never allow their people to have guns.

That's funny, since in about 4300 other threads car fatalities are constantly coming up as a false comparison.

Now suddenly --- not so convenient.

The anti gun extremists started comparing guns to cars with that stupid meme about gun deaths and car deaths….you guys started it and now are complaining when it is used to show how dumb your ideas are.

 

[2aguy]

"Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?"

Of course not, nor does anyone of merit or consequence.

Except for obama, hilary, the democrats in the Senate, the democrats in the House, democrat mayors in major American cities...…yeah…just them….

 

[2aguy]

If you're on the receiving end of my bullet then you must have been a threat to me, my family or my property.

If you don't want to get shot, then don't do stupid shit that will cause you to get shot.

Izzat right.

What kind of "stupid shit" were the folks on the receiving end of Robert Dear's bullets doing? All I know is one of them was a cop, trying to stop him. How stupid, huh?

What kind of "stupid shit" were those on the receiving end of Jared Loughner's bullets? Or Adam Lanza's bullets? Or Wade Michael Page's bullets? Jiverly Wong's? James Holmes'? John Houser's? Seung Hui-Cho's?

I think I know what Carl Robert's receiving ends were guilty of -- being Amish girls.

And the 1.5 million times a year crimes are stopped by Americans with guns…according to bill clinton and supported by obama's CDC……..

There are 356,991,876 million guns in the country that are not used to commit the 8,124 gun murders……

Mass public shootings in 2015…..4

number of deaths in mass public shootings in 2015…36


I hope you can count because your list is tiny compared to law abiding gun owners who never use their guns to commit crimes or shoot anyone……and 1.5 million times a year use them to stop violent criminal attack and potential mass shooters….

Try to list all the facts…….

There are a total of 8,124 gun murders in 2014…..the majority by criminals murdering other criminals……and 356,991,876 million guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners who did not use them to commit murder….

Which is a bigger number…

356,991,876 or 8,124?

Can you tell….do you need to use your toes?

 

[2aguy]

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California

So guns have been banned in New York and California, have they?

Try to buy an AR-15 in New York….or in California…..or a gun with a 15 round magazine…….one pistol I have……can't be sold in California……..

 

[Fishlore]

...Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?

Research on the effects of tighter gun control is complex. There is no simple one-to-one connection between tighter laws and specific crimes because we can only speculate how something like the changes Obama described today would have effected Mrs. Lanza's treatment of her son, Adam. But there is pretty good evidence that laws increasing restrictions on firearms do have a subtle effect across the society, causing many -- but not all -- to alter their attitudes toward guns generally. Changes which effect gun show sales, for example serve to remind people of the potential dangers of irresponsible gun possession and can cause people who have not previously secured their guns at home to get a gun safe or some trigger locks. Laws express social values in a number of ways.

There are many "responsible gun owners" who are disgusted by waves of illegal activity often involving violation of existing gun laws. Many gun owners agree with the idea that our society needs to send out a stronger, clearer message that gun possession is a serious responsibility and that proper training and secure storage are essential to make the Second Amendment work as a citizen right.

Disgruntlement and wailing over common sense adjustments undermines the message. Childish enthusiasm for people like Bundy and his group, who are breaking the law with their armed trespass, doesn't strengthen the Second Amendment, it inflames the mentally unstable and provokes popular backlash.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California

So guns have been banned in New York and California, have they?

Try to buy an AR-15 in New York….or in California…..or a gun with a 15 round magazine…….one pistol I have……can't be sold in California……..

What pistol do you have that's banned in Ca.? It may be a Springfield XD or XDS and the reason is because Springfield refuses to pay the fee required to be able to sell in Ca.

 

[BULLDOG]

Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Read the OP again, slowly.

The OP claims that the goal is a gun registry. There is no reason to believe that other than a lot of whining from gun nuts.

 

[PredFan]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

 

[jwoodie]

The OP claims that the goal is a gun registry. There is no reason to believe that other than a lot of whining from gun nuts.

I said a registry of gun owners, Brainiac. How else would the FBI keep track of which purchases had been "screened?"

 

[ogibillm]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

 

[BULLDOG]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

 

[ogibillm]

On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...

.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?

Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.

except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminals

No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.

i don't think i said 'all'

but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.

 

[jwoodie]

There today exist all manners of lists and repositories of information about citizens and residents. That information can be used for good or bad ends.

Red:
I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.

I think you just contradicted yourself: If this information can be used for good or bad ends, how would someone also believe that it could not happen?

Do you also dismiss other data/privacy concerns as fallacious "just in case" arguments?

It must be comforting to have such faith in your government. Did you feel the same way when Bush was President?