In 1 minute, california gun owners go from Law abiding citizens to felons, without firing a shot...

[2aguy]

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

There would be if you shot someone and tossed it in a river.

Nope. The question has remained the same. To summarize ..... How would they track down who the gun owner was?

Even if that were true the question remains the same you are the murderer and the gun owner.

Because I wanted to. Can you answer the question?

I just told you.

They don't need to know who the original owner was, just who used it to murder the gang banger at the drive thru...

 

[Asclepias]

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

Cops don't need gun registration since the criminal doing the shooting is rarely the actual owner of the gun, in fact, the average time on the street of a gun is about 11 years.....so tell us how registering a gun means anything...

As my link explained, they will go for "known aquaintences" to find out who shot who...

The only reason to register guns is to confiscate them....

I dont need a car either but it sure comes in handy when I decide to the grocery story. Just another tool to help me do it more efficiently.

If they know who the gun was registered to it helps them understand how the gun got on the street.

Mainly, it's going to help confiscate them.

Well my mind is made up. I disagree with you.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

There would be if you shot someone and tossed it in a river.

Nope. The question has remained the same. To summarize ..... How would they track down who the gun owner was?

Even if that were true the question remains the same you are the murderer and the gun owner.

Because I wanted to. Can you answer the question?

I just told you.

They don't need to know who the original owner was, just who used it to murder the gang banger at the drive thru...

Of course they need to know. Good thing you dont dictate what they need to know.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes....because registering would be self-incriminating, because the felon owning a gun is a crime. The USSC ruling did not make the felon owning the gun perfectly legal, it just made it so that said felon cannot be charged for not registering as well as illegally owning the gun.

so why write a law that does not target the criminal but rather only the law abiding

I didn't write the law, I'm just pointing out that the USSC ruling did not make it legal for criminals to own guns.

i am saying that registration laws only target the law abiding

I agree to disagree. Anyone caught with Arms without registration, would be in more serious trouble.

except for the criminal the Supreme Court has ruled that felons can not be compelled to register firearms so they can not be charged

for a crime for failing to do so

why not? even felons have to have a driver's license to drive.

 

[miketx]

Then why not register every other weapon that can be used to commit murder?

I mean if you beat someone to death with a baseball bat and throw it in the river how are the cops going to know it's yours?

Registering guns has nothing to do with the murder rate

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

Excellent deflection! I'm sure the media fed are calling you a hero right now! But, using an example of what someone else has done in a similar situation is really not that hard to understand. Maybe if you had done better in school....

 

[2aguy]

When were they told to register the assault weapons? Yesterday? Usually you know at least by the 1rst of the year.

What law says they are going to later be confiscated?

The fact that they want to register the guns.... the only reason to register guns is for later confiscation.....there is no other reason.

My guns are registered and they havent been confiscated. Please show me where they are going to confiscate the guns. I cant depend on your conspiracy theories. Also you didnt answer when these people were told to register their assault weapons. Why are you stalling?

They aren't conspiracy theories...... the Germans registered their guns in the 20s and didn't confiscate until the late 1930s......

Do you understand that actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns...per the Supreme Court ruling Haynes v United States...which means you have to register your gun, while they don't have to....and you think that is just a genius policy....

It means that criminals can not be charged for not registering their guns, it does not mean that they can not be charged with illegally owning a gun.

Correct..... but the law abiding citizen who does not register their gun can be charged for not registering their gun...see the problem?

 

[miketx]

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

Cops don't need gun registration since the criminal doing the shooting is rarely the actual owner of the gun, in fact, the average time on the street of a gun is about 11 years.....so tell us how registering a gun means anything...

As my link explained, they will go for "known aquaintences" to find out who shot who...

The only reason to register guns is to confiscate them....

I dont need a car either but it sure comes in handy when I decide to the grocery story. Just another tool to help me do it more efficiently.

If they know who the gun was registered to it helps them understand how the gun got on the street.

Mainly, it's going to help confiscate them.

Well my mind is made up. I disagree with you.

Good socialist!

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

Excellent deflection! I'm sure the media fed are calling you a hero right now! But, using an example of what someone else has done in a similar situation is really not that hard to understand. Maybe if you had done better in school....

No. Thats an idiots argument. Thats like saying If a law against murder fails in another country we shouldnt have a law against murder here. You silly ninny.

 

[2aguy]

Then why not register every other weapon that can be used to commit murder?

I mean if you beat someone to death with a baseball bat and throw it in the river how are the cops going to know it's yours?

Registering guns has nothing to do with the murder rate

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

They did what you want, they registered their long guns and it was a complete shit show.....it cost more in money and man power than they had...

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.

 

[miketx]

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

Excellent deflection! I'm sure the media fed are calling you a hero right now! But, using an example of what someone else has done in a similar situation is really not that hard to understand. Maybe if you had done better in school....

No. Thats an idiots argument. Thats like saying If a law against murder fails in another country we shouldnt have a law against murder here. You silly ninny.

Even better! Winner deflection of the year! Socialist hero! You'll go far in pretend camp!

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

They did what you want, they registered their long guns and it was a complete shit show.....it cost more in money and man power than they had...

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.

Good thing we arent in Canada right?

 

[2aguy]

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to law enforcement to be able to determine if a gun that was used in a crime was NOT registered. That, in turn could lead to tracing out how illegal firearms are reaching the public.

In every riot the gun stores get cleaned out faster than the liquor stores.

Also, let's say someone stole a gun and killed somebody with it. He knows the shell casings will trace the gun (if found in his possession) back to him, so he sells it to a guy who does the same thing.

Do you think the last guy that gets caught with the gun wont say where he got the gun from to avoid going to prison?

Yep..... so you don't need a gun registry to find out who owned the gun.....they already do this when they catch criminals who use guns....this is how they currently catch straw buyers... no gun registration needed..

 

[Asclepias]

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to law enforcement to be able to determine if a gun that was used in a crime was NOT registered. That, in turn could lead to tracing out how illegal firearms are reaching the public.

In every riot the gun stores get cleaned out faster than the liquor stores.

Also, let's say someone stole a gun and killed somebody with it. He knows the shell casings will trace the gun (if found in his possession) back to him, so he sells it to a guy who does the same thing.

Do you think the last guy that gets caught with the gun wont say where he got the gun from to avoid going to prison?

Yep..... so you don't need a gun registry to find out who owned the gun.....they already do this when they catch criminals who use guns....this is how they currently catch straw buyers... no gun registration needed..

Yes you do need a registry to find out who owns the gun. Like you said yourself a gun can pass through several people that are not the owner.

 

[miketx]

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

They did what you want, they registered their long guns and it was a complete shit show.....it cost more in money and man power than they had...

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.

Good thing we arent in Canada right?

If socialists like you take over we will be in the same boat only here, most will not give up their guns like the pussies in Canada did. Now this is where you start with the "keyboard commando" remarks.

 

[2aguy]

When were they told to register the assault weapons? Yesterday? Usually you know at least by the 1rst of the year.

What law says they are going to later be confiscated?

Semi-automatic firearms are not "assault weapons"

You may want to tell California law makers you changed the definition. They say otherwise.


Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is considered an assault weapon under California law?
   
   There are three categories of assault weapons under California law:
   • Category One: Firearms specified on the original Roberti-Roos assault weapons list. (Pen. Code, § 30510, subds. (a),(b), and (c).)
   • Category Two: Firearms specified on the AK and AR-15 series weapons, pdf. (Pen. Code, § 30510, subds. (e) and (f).)
   • Category Three: Firearms defined as assault weapons based on specific generic characteristics, often called “SB 23 assault weapons.” (Pen. Code, § 30515.)
   
   
   
2. What are AK and AR-15 series weapons?
   
   These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 5499.

They are currently in violation of the Supreme Court decision D.C v Heller....... their ban on these weapons is in violation of the Constitution....

 

[Asclepias]

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

They did what you want, they registered their long guns and it was a complete shit show.....it cost more in money and man power than they had...

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.

Good thing we arent in Canada right?

If socialists like you take over we will be in the same boat only here, most will not give up their guns like the pussies in Canada did. Now this is where you start with the "keyboard commando" remarks.

Having a registry doesnt mean you have to give up your gun dummy. It just a way of tracking who it belongs to.

 

[2aguy]

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to law enforcement to be able to determine if a gun that was used in a crime was NOT registered. That, in turn could lead to tracing out how illegal firearms are reaching the public.

In every riot the gun stores get cleaned out faster than the liquor stores.

Also, let's say someone stole a gun and killed somebody with it. He knows the shell casings will trace the gun (if found in his possession) back to him, so he sells it to a guy who does the same thing.

Do you think the last guy that gets caught with the gun wont say where he got the gun from to avoid going to prison?

Yep..... so you don't need a gun registry to find out who owned the gun.....they already do this when they catch criminals who use guns....this is how they currently catch straw buyers... no gun registration needed..

Yes you do need a registry to find out who owns the gun. Like you said yourself a gun can pass through several people that are not the owner.

And you said yourself that each criminal will rat out the last guy they got the gun from...... so you are the one who showed us there is no law enforcement reason for a gun registry. The only reason to register guns is to confiscate them.

 

[miketx]

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

They did what you want, they registered their long guns and it was a complete shit show.....it cost more in money and man power than they had...

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.

Good thing we arent in Canada right?

If socialists like you take over we will be in the same boat only here, most will not give up their guns like the pussies in Canada did. Now this is where you start with the "keyboard commando" remarks.

Having a registry doesnt mean you have to give up your gun dummy. It just a way of tracking who it belongs to.

Excellent deflection again! The media fed must worship you as king!

 

[2aguy]

Since the shooter is rarely the actual owner, since the gun was bought through a straw purchase, sold or traded for drugs over and over again, or given out to the gang member shooters......registration doesn't do anyting...

You guys love Canada....they registered guns....and it did nothing for them...


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.

So your using Canada laws to prove your case in the US? You do realize their laws dont dictate what we can use in court right?

They did what you want, they registered their long guns and it was a complete shit show.....it cost more in money and man power than they had...

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.

Good thing we arent in Canada right?

If socialists like you take over we will be in the same boat only here, most will not give up their guns like the pussies in Canada did. Now this is where you start with the "keyboard commando" remarks.

Having a registry doesnt mean you have to give up your gun dummy. It just a way of tracking who it belongs to.

Yes....so when they get the political power to ban them, they know whose house to go to to get that gun.

 

[Asclepias]

When were they told to register the assault weapons? Yesterday? Usually you know at least by the 1rst of the year.

What law says they are going to later be confiscated?

Semi-automatic firearms are not "assault weapons"

You may want to tell California law makers you changed the definition. They say otherwise.


Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is considered an assault weapon under California law?
   
   There are three categories of assault weapons under California law:
   • Category One: Firearms specified on the original Roberti-Roos assault weapons list. (Pen. Code, § 30510, subds. (a),(b), and (c).)
   • Category Two: Firearms specified on the AK and AR-15 series weapons, pdf. (Pen. Code, § 30510, subds. (e) and (f).)
   • Category Three: Firearms defined as assault weapons based on specific generic characteristics, often called “SB 23 assault weapons.” (Pen. Code, § 30515.)
   
   
   
2. What are AK and AR-15 series weapons?
   
   These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 5499.

They are currently in violation of the Supreme Court decision D.C v Heller....... their ban on these weapons is in violation of the Constitution....

Lifes tough aint it? If they are in violation why doesnt the SC do something about it?