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

[DandyDonovan]

Wry , I asked you a simple question. Do you acknowledged that your proposed new laws would not have prevented any of the shootings you mentioned?

 

[Kilroy2]

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?

Why would the gun be confiscated if your law abiding citizen

Now it would be confiscated if a crime was commit with that gun

IF the law abiding citizen used that gun in a crime this would help law enforcement identify the owner of the gun

if the gun was stolen well at least law enforcement would have a starting point of the investigation if they can find who the gun is registered to

the gun may have been stolen and it would help narrow the field of who might have stolen it

Crime gun tracing, do you really have a problem with that

Now suppose a gun owner who registered his gun commits a crime and is now a felon. Yes they would confiscate you gun. So do you really have a problem with convicted felons getting there gun confiscated

It promotes responsibility for gun owners

Do you really want to misplace or allow someone to take your gun

this is just a discussion why they registers guns

Your quote of the supreme court was accurate

Still if you are a felon and get caught with a gun they will arrest you for being a convicted felon with a gun not because you didn't register the gun

Ever been pulled over and they ask if you have a gun

well if it is registered, should be no problem,if it is not then , ouch

question and answer time

 

[DandyDonovan]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Wry must have been thread banned, what a shame because I'm positive he was about to admit that his propose new laws would not have prevented any of the shootings he cited.

 

[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?

Why would the gun be confiscated if your law abiding citizen

Now it would be confiscated if a crime was commit with that gun

IF the law abiding citizen used that gun in a crime this would help law enforcement identify the owner of the gun

if the gun was stolen well at least law enforcement would have a starting point of the investigation if they can find who the gun is registered to

the gun may have been stolen and it would help narrow the field of who might have stolen it

Crime gun tracing, do you really have a problem with that

Now suppose a gun owner who registered his gun commits a crime and is now a felon. Yes they would confiscate you gun. So do you really have a problem with convicted felons getting there gun confiscated

It promotes responsibility for gun owners

Do you really want to misplace or allow someone to take your gun

this is just a discussion why they registers guns

Your quote of the supreme court was accurate

Still if you are a felon and get caught with a gun they will arrest you for being a convicted felon with a gun not because you didn't register the gun

Ever been pulled over and they ask if you have a gun

well if it is registered, should be no problem,if it is not then , ouch

question and answer time

because democrats do not want normal citizens to have access to guns.

Canada already tried this, and failed....

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.



----------

3/24/18



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.




3/24/18



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.

 

[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?

Why would the gun be confiscated if your law abiding citizen

Now it would be confiscated if a crime was commit with that gun

IF the law abiding citizen used that gun in a crime this would help law enforcement identify the owner of the gun

if the gun was stolen well at least law enforcement would have a starting point of the investigation if they can find who the gun is registered to

the gun may have been stolen and it would help narrow the field of who might have stolen it

Crime gun tracing, do you really have a problem with that

Now suppose a gun owner who registered his gun commits a crime and is now a felon. Yes they would confiscate you gun. So do you really have a problem with convicted felons getting there gun confiscated

It promotes responsibility for gun owners

Do you really want to misplace or allow someone to take your gun

this is just a discussion why they registers guns

Your quote of the supreme court was accurate

Still if you are a felon and get caught with a gun they will arrest you for being a convicted felon with a gun not because you didn't register the gun

Ever been pulled over and they ask if you have a gun

well if it is registered, should be no problem,if it is not then , ouch

question and answer time

Ever been pulled over and they ask if you have a gun

well if it is registered, should be no problem,if it is not then , ouch

There is no need to register a gun for this. If you are a law abiding citizen and the police find out you have a gun, they just run your name and date of birth, if you have no warrants or felonies, they leave you alone......if you are a criminal, they arrest you. At no time is gun registration needed for this.....

 

[Kilroy2]

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?

Why would the gun be confiscated if your law abiding citizen

Now it would be confiscated if a crime was commit with that gun

IF the law abiding citizen used that gun in a crime this would help law enforcement identify the owner of the gun

if the gun was stolen well at least law enforcement would have a starting point of the investigation if they can find who the gun is registered to

the gun may have been stolen and it would help narrow the field of who might have stolen it

Crime gun tracing, do you really have a problem with that

Now suppose a gun owner who registered his gun commits a crime and is now a felon. Yes they would confiscate you gun. So do you really have a problem with convicted felons getting there gun confiscated

It promotes responsibility for gun owners

Do you really want to misplace or allow someone to take your gun

this is just a discussion why they registers guns

Your quote of the supreme court was accurate

Still if you are a felon and get caught with a gun they will arrest you for being a convicted felon with a gun not because you didn't register the gun

Ever been pulled over and they ask if you have a gun

well if it is registered, should be no problem,if it is not then , ouch

question and answer time

Ever been pulled over and they ask if you have a gun

well if it is registered, should be no problem,if it is not then , ouch

There is no need to register a gun for this. If you are a law abiding citizen and the police find out you have a gun, they just run your name and date of birth, if you have no warrants or felonies, they leave you alone......if you are a criminal, they arrest you. At no time is gun registration needed for this.....

Okay you responded to the last one but not the other two points
and the last one is a valid respond

since you position is there is no need for then fine

Unfortunately it has to be registered for the other two points and the last one point is a

no harm no foul

 

[candycorn]

When someone is arrested for a gun crime using an unregistered firearm, it allows the courts to enhance the charges on top of the crime. Logic would dictate that there would be more lengthy prison sentences and prevention from registering a firearm in the future.

 

[DandyDonovan]

When someone is arrested for a gun crime using an unregistered firearm, it allows the courts to enhance the charges on top of the crime. Logic would dictate that there would be more lengthy prison sentences and prevention from registering a firearm in the future.

Except that we KNOW that that is NOT what happens Candy. We know it, police in Chicago , for example, ROUTINELY complain that courts don't hand out long enough sentences for those who are caught illegally possessing a gun.

We do not need more gun laws we need stiffer penalty enforcement for the laws we already have.

Even the beloved Obama , how many commutations did he hand out to people who had committed very serious crimes involving guns?

 

[candycorn]

When someone is arrested for a gun crime using an unregistered firearm, it allows the courts to enhance the charges on top of the crime. Logic would dictate that there would be more lengthy prison sentences and prevention from registering a firearm in the future.

Except that we KNOW that that is NOT what happens Candy. We know it, police in Chicago , for example, ROUTINELY complain that courts don't hand out long enough sentences for those who are caught illegally possessing a gun.

We do not need more gun laws we need stiffer penalty enforcement for the laws we already have.

Even the beloved Obama , how many commutations did he hand out to people who had committed very serious crimes involving guns?

That is a separate issue. The OP asked a question. You have your answer.
Now if you want to start a thread about “Why aren’t judges handing out long sentences for gun crimes?” I’ll be happy to comment with the following:

The Prison Industrial Complex or whatever a lot of liberals call it is set up to do one thing; support itself. Unrealistic fines and bails are levied on people who can never pay them. When they do not show up for their court date due to being homeless or having other commitments or being afraid to show up because someone from the underworld is looking for them and has the court-house staked out….they get arrested for an FTA. Now there are two charges; the original crime of which they have not been found guilty and the FTA which, don’t get me wrong is 100% their fault. I’m with you on the sentencing…liberals are frankly as dumb on this issue as they are on any issue afield right now.

You commit a crime using a gun (back to our topic), you should get 10 years. I am talking 3,650 days. No ifs, ands, and buts. First offense…whatever. Mandatory minimums I think is the term. Once in jail, then they can try to plead for clemency and extenuating circumstances if they want through the Governor’s office or the State board of P&P.

Next crime, 30 years. See ya! Regardless of what it is.

For about 5 years this won’t matter. Keep that in mind. Once the sentences become real and filter down to the granular street-thug level…then it will start having an effect.

Next, I would recommend that every 6 months you rotate judges so there are no “dial a plea” judges out there who are entrenched, look favorably among the poor youth who had no choice but to commit 17 counts of armed robbery. Get that judge out of that seat. Some will skate by but you won’t have a judge who is known for light sentencing, being overly defendant friendly, etc…

The issue on the back end is that it costs so much to incarcerate people. States don’t want to pay it. Can’t blame them. So they hire out private prison systems to do it. Then you have another issue (actually our only issue) with some saying that “CCA or GEO Group is just there to make a buck off the taxpayers!!!” Ya think?

We need to grow up as a people and realize that the 2nd Amendment is causing much more pain than it prevents. The stats prove it. There is no serious debate about that.

But we also need to grow up and realize that someone arrested 10 times is not going to rehabilitate… time to find some dark holes in our prisons and time to put some people in them.

 

[2aguy]

When someone is arrested for a gun crime using an unregistered firearm, it allows the courts to enhance the charges on top of the crime. Logic would dictate that there would be more lengthy prison sentences and prevention from registering a firearm in the future.

And no. Most of the time they bargain away the gun charge.....that is the first thing that goes away. So your point is incorrect. If they did as most 2nd Amendment supporters want, which is 10-30 years for simply using the gun during the crime...on top of whatever they get for the crime....we would have less violent gun crime in this country...but again, the gun charge is the first bargained away, and then they get bail, and then they go out and shoot someone else...because the democrat party does not want to upset their minority base by pushing laws that might impact violent criminals in their democrat controlled neighborhoods.....

 

[candycorn]

When someone is arrested for a gun crime using an unregistered firearm, it allows the courts to enhance the charges on top of the crime. Logic would dictate that there would be more lengthy prison sentences and prevention from registering a firearm in the future.

And no. Most of the time they bargain away the gun charge.....that is the first thing that goes away. So your point is incorrect. If they did as most 2nd Amendment supporters want, which is 10-30 years for simply using the gun during the crime...on top of whatever they get for the crime....we would have less violent gun crime in this country...but again, the gun charge is the first bargained away, and then they get bail, and then they go out and shoot someone else...because the democrat party does not want to upset their minority base by pushing laws that might impact violent criminals in their democrat controlled neighborhoods.....

Again a different issue.
You asked why register.
This is just another bargaining chip the Prosecutor has in prosecuting gun crimes.

 

[2aguy]

When someone is arrested for a gun crime using an unregistered firearm, it allows the courts to enhance the charges on top of the crime. Logic would dictate that there would be more lengthy prison sentences and prevention from registering a firearm in the future.

Except that we KNOW that that is NOT what happens Candy. We know it, police in Chicago , for example, ROUTINELY complain that courts don't hand out long enough sentences for those who are caught illegally possessing a gun.

We do not need more gun laws we need stiffer penalty enforcement for the laws we already have.

Even the beloved Obama , how many commutations did he hand out to people who had committed very serious crimes involving guns?

That is a separate issue. The OP asked a question. You have your answer.
Now if you want to start a thread about “Why aren’t judges handing out long sentences for gun crimes?” I’ll be happy to comment with the following:

The Prison Industrial Complex or whatever a lot of liberals call it is set up to do one thing; support itself. Unrealistic fines and bails are levied on people who can never pay them. When they do not show up for their court date due to being homeless or having other commitments or being afraid to show up because someone from the underworld is looking for them and has the court-house staked out….they get arrested for an FTA. Now there are two charges; the original crime of which they have not been found guilty and the FTA which, don’t get me wrong is 100% their fault. I’m with you on the sentencing…liberals are frankly as dumb on this issue as they are on any issue afield right now.

You commit a crime using a gun (back to our topic), you should get 10 years. I am talking 3,650 days. No ifs, ands, and buts. First offense…whatever. Mandatory minimums I think is the term. Once in jail, then they can try to plead for clemency and extenuating circumstances if they want through the Governor’s office or the State board of P&P.

Next crime, 30 years. See ya! Regardless of what it is.

For about 5 years this won’t matter. Keep that in mind. Once the sentences become real and filter down to the granular street-thug level…then it will start having an effect.

Next, I would recommend that every 6 months you rotate judges so there are no “dial a plea” judges out there who are entrenched, look favorably among the poor youth who had no choice but to commit 17 counts of armed robbery. Get that judge out of that seat. Some will skate by but you won’t have a judge who is known for light sentencing, being overly defendant friendly, etc…

The issue on the back end is that it costs so much to incarcerate people. States don’t want to pay it. Can’t blame them. So they hire out private prison systems to do it. Then you have another issue (actually our only issue) with some saying that “CCA or GEO Group is just there to make a buck off the taxpayers!!!” Ya think?

We need to grow up as a people and realize that the 2nd Amendment is causing much more pain than it prevents. The stats prove it. There is no serious debate about that.

But we also need to grow up and realize that someone arrested 10 times is not going to rehabilitate… time to find some dark holes in our prisons and time to put some people in them.

See...we can agree on something....focus on people who actually use guns for crime, not law abiding gun owners. And as you point out, it is the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians who keep reducing the prison sentences for gun criminals...I have article after article on this very problem....St. Louis....gun crimes are a revolving door, dittos Chicago, and all the other cities that have high gun crime rates....

Japan has reduced their gun crime by doing just that, long prison sentences for any yakuza caught with a gun...10 years...and that is time served in a Japanese Prison....and more time for bullets, and more time if more than one gun is found.

Focus on the criminals using the guns, and you reduce gun crime. Load up the red tape and fees on Law abiding gun owners and you don't effect the gun crime rate.

We need to grow up as a people and realize that the 2nd Amendment is causing much more pain than it prevents. The stats prove it.

What Stats would those be...since none of them support what you just posted.......

And as to the 2nd Amendment....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals...according to the Centers for Disease Control....the Department of Justice puts the number at 1.5 million, and another 15 studies put it as high or higher.....

On top of that, as you well know, more Armed law abiding Americans has not led to any increase in any crime......you are wrong again.....

Over the last 26 years we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

When someone is arrested for a gun crime using an unregistered firearm, it allows the courts to enhance the charges on top of the crime. Logic would dictate that there would be more lengthy prison sentences and prevention from registering a firearm in the future.

And no. Most of the time they bargain away the gun charge.....that is the first thing that goes away. So your point is incorrect. If they did as most 2nd Amendment supporters want, which is 10-30 years for simply using the gun during the crime...on top of whatever they get for the crime....we would have less violent gun crime in this country...but again, the gun charge is the first bargained away, and then they get bail, and then they go out and shoot someone else...because the democrat party does not want to upset their minority base by pushing laws that might impact violent criminals in their democrat controlled neighborhoods.....

Again a different issue.
You asked why register.
This is just another bargaining chip the Prosecutor has in prosecuting gun crimes.

And registration has nothing to do with that.....you argument makes no sense.... you have a criminals, committing a rape, robbery or murder, with a gun.....you have him, you know a gun was used, so registration doesn't even enter the equation....

The only reason to register guns is to know which law abiding people have them so you can later confiscate them....

 

[danielpalos]

Persons acquiring and possessing Arms should be processed for voter and militia registry.

 

[DandyDonovan]

When someone is arrested for a gun crime using an unregistered firearm, it allows the courts to enhance the charges on top of the crime. Logic would dictate that there would be more lengthy prison sentences and prevention from registering a firearm in the future.

Except that we KNOW that that is NOT what happens Candy. We know it, police in Chicago , for example, ROUTINELY complain that courts don't hand out long enough sentences for those who are caught illegally possessing a gun.

We do not need more gun laws we need stiffer penalty enforcement for the laws we already have.

Even the beloved Obama , how many commutations did he hand out to people who had committed very serious crimes involving guns?

That is a separate issue. The OP asked a question. You have your answer.
Now if you want to start a thread about “Why aren’t judges handing out long sentences for gun crimes?” I’ll be happy to comment with the following:

The Prison Industrial Complex or whatever a lot of liberals call it is set up to do one thing; support itself. Unrealistic fines and bails are levied on people who can never pay them. When they do not show up for their court date due to being homeless or having other commitments or being afraid to show up because someone from the underworld is looking for them and has the court-house staked out….they get arrested for an FTA. Now there are two charges; the original crime of which they have not been found guilty and the FTA which, don’t get me wrong is 100% their fault. I’m with you on the sentencing…liberals are frankly as dumb on this issue as they are on any issue afield right now.

You commit a crime using a gun (back to our topic), you should get 10 years. I am talking 3,650 days. No ifs, ands, and buts. First offense…whatever. Mandatory minimums I think is the term. Once in jail, then they can try to plead for clemency and extenuating circumstances if they want through the Governor’s office or the State board of P&P.

Next crime, 30 years. See ya! Regardless of what it is.

For about 5 years this won’t matter. Keep that in mind. Once the sentences become real and filter down to the granular street-thug level…then it will start having an effect.

Next, I would recommend that every 6 months you rotate judges so there are no “dial a plea” judges out there who are entrenched, look favorably among the poor youth who had no choice but to commit 17 counts of armed robbery. Get that judge out of that seat. Some will skate by but you won’t have a judge who is known for light sentencing, being overly defendant friendly, etc…

The issue on the back end is that it costs so much to incarcerate people. States don’t want to pay it. Can’t blame them. So they hire out private prison systems to do it. Then you have another issue (actually our only issue) with some saying that “CCA or GEO Group is just there to make a buck off the taxpayers!!!” Ya think?

We need to grow up as a people and realize that the 2nd Amendment is causing much more pain than it prevents. The stats prove it. There is no serious debate about that.

But we also need to grow up and realize that someone arrested 10 times is not going to rehabilitate… time to find some dark holes in our prisons and time to put some people in them.

Actually Candy the stats prove exactly the opposite of what you just claimed they do. We have FAR more legally owned guns at this time that any time in our history, and yet gun violence is actually at historic lows nation wide.

Cities with draconian gun laws that actually violate the COTUS while at the same time having higher than average gun crime rates PROVE conclusively that doing away with the 2nd Amendment would not reduce gun crime. Because crimnals do not care if they have a right to own a gun or not.

I am not sure what part of this you are not getting, it is already illegal to murder people. Taking away the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make someone who is intent on murder say 'oops I don't have a right to own a gun, guess I'll let this person live"

Imagine if I proposed to you "If we did away with the first Amendment, that would solve the issue of people calling each other names, we'll just make it illegal to do so"

I would imagine your response would be to laugh at me. I would HOPE it would be.

 

[candycorn]

Actually Candy the stats prove exactly the opposite of what you just claimed they do. We have FAR more legally owned guns at this time that any time in our history, and yet gun violence is actually at historic lows nation wide.

Assuming I disagreed with any of that; we’d still have the most gun deaths of any developed nation. Thanks for confirming what I said though; we have the most guns and the most violence. I wonder what the prize is?
Oh yeah, almost predictable rampage killings.

Cities with draconian gun laws that actually violate the COTUS while at the same time having higher than average gun crime rates PROVE conclusively that doing away with the 2nd Amendment would not reduce gun crime. Because crimnals do not care if they have a right to own a gun or not.

After notching 30K gun deaths over and over and prescribing nothing except thoughts and prayers…it may be time to try something different than breaking out the hymnals. I’m for mandatory minimums and locking up criminals for a long, long time. Another law on the books helps.

I am not sure what part of this you are not getting, it is already illegal to murder people. Taking away the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make someone who is intent on murder say 'oops I don't have a right to own a gun, guess I'll let this person live"

I was answering the question. There are probably other answers that were better. One benefit is that violating gun registry laws enhances the sentence.

Imagine if I proposed to you "If we did away with the first Amendment, that would solve the issue of people calling each other names, we'll just make it illegal to do so"

I would imagine your response would be to laugh at me. I would HOPE it would be.

hilarious.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I was answering the question. There are probably other answers that were better. One benefit is that violating gun registry laws enhances the sentence.



hilarious.

No it doesn't , as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, prosecutors bargain cases down all the time, and the first thing to go is any crime enhancer.

It is already an "enhancer" if you rob a store with a gun, so adding the enhancer "using a unregistered gun" means nothing. In fact it means less than nothing because if the first thing bargained away is the gun charge, ,why would the NEW charge not also be bargained away ? It would be. Absolutely, positively.

 

[candycorn]

I was answering the question. There are probably other answers that were better. One benefit is that violating gun registry laws enhances the sentence.



hilarious.

No it doesn't , as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, prosecutors bargain cases down all the time, and the first thing to go is any crime enhancer.

It is already an "enhancer" if you rob a store with a gun, so adding the enhancer "using a unregistered gun" means nothing. In fact it means less than nothing because if the first thing bargained away is the gun charge, ,why would the NEW charge not also be bargained away ? It would be. Absolutely, positively.

Ok.

It’s pointless pointing out the obvious time and again when you fundamentally keep addressing another topic.

 

[2aguy]

Actually Candy the stats prove exactly the opposite of what you just claimed they do. We have FAR more legally owned guns at this time that any time in our history, and yet gun violence is actually at historic lows nation wide.

Assuming I disagreed with any of that; we’d still have the most gun deaths of any developed nation. Thanks for confirming what I said though; we have the most guns and the most violence. I wonder what the prize is?
Oh yeah, almost predictable rampage killings.

Cities with draconian gun laws that actually violate the COTUS while at the same time having higher than average gun crime rates PROVE conclusively that doing away with the 2nd Amendment would not reduce gun crime. Because crimnals do not care if they have a right to own a gun or not.

After notching 30K gun deaths over and over and prescribing nothing except thoughts and prayers…it may be time to try something different than breaking out the hymnals. I’m for mandatory minimums and locking up criminals for a long, long time. Another law on the books helps.

I am not sure what part of this you are not getting, it is already illegal to murder people. Taking away the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make someone who is intent on murder say 'oops I don't have a right to own a gun, guess I'll let this person live"

I was answering the question. There are probably other answers that were better. One benefit is that violating gun registry laws enhances the sentence.

Imagine if I proposed to you "If we did away with the first Amendment, that would solve the issue of people calling each other names, we'll just make it illegal to do so"

I would imagine your response would be to laugh at me. I would HOPE it would be.

hilarious.

Our violence has nothing to do with gun ownership....as was pointed out by me and DandyDonovan, as more Americans not only own guns, but carry them, our gun crime rate did not go up, it went down, our gun murder rate did not go up, it went down...so you have no point that is accurate.....

And there you go...mixing suicide up in gun murder to get the 30,000 gun deaths a year...showing that you are not going to debate this honestly since guns have nothing to do with suicide...as you have been shown over and over again, from research, and from actual statistics on suicide from countries with extreme gun control...so, honest discussion isn't what you are interested in since the facts, the reality and the truth do not support anything you believe about guns in this country....

I was answering the question. There are probably other answers that were better. One benefit is that violating gun registry laws enhances the sentence.

And you are wrong on this too......criminals, felons, caught with illegal guns cannot be prosecuted for not registering their illegal guns....the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Haynes v United States......states that a felon does not have to register an illegal gun because that would violate their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination....

There is no reason to register guns...none. The only reason to do it is to know which law abiding citizens have them so when the anti gunners have power, they can confiscate them....that is the only reason.

 

[candycorn]

I was answering the question. There are probably other answers that were better. One benefit is that violating gun registry laws enhances the sentence.



hilarious.

No it doesn't , as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, prosecutors bargain cases down all the time, and the first thing to go is any crime enhancer.

It is already an "enhancer" if you rob a store with a gun, so adding the enhancer "using a unregistered gun" means nothing. In fact it means less than nothing because if the first thing bargained away is the gun charge, ,why would the NEW charge not also be bargained away ? It would be. Absolutely, positively.

Ok.

It’s pointless pointing out the obvious time and again when you fundamentally keep addressing another topic.

Yes...the facts show you are wrong....the truth shows you are wrong, the reality shows you are wrong....so now you deflect and try to ignore the valid points made by DandyDonovan

The fact is that nations without the 2nd Amendment don’t have as many gun deaths as we do. If more guns made us safer, we’d have almost no gun deaths. Instead we have, by far, the most. Clearly the 2nd Amendment is the cause. Those are the facts.

Now back to the spin-fest.