CDZ Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

[320 Years of History]

No, it isn't. It's about collecting information so that one can use that information to subsequently take action against people who betray the trust placed in them when they chose to exercise their right to own a firearm.

And no, owners of black market guns are not going to register their guns. But by having stricter rules that allow for the easy tracking and verifying the flow of any given gun from lawful seller/owner to lawful owner/sell to, eventually, an unlawful owner tells us who is responsible for failing to exercise adequate control over their weapon.

The problem is not that lawful users obtain guns; it's that unlawful users do. The only way to find out what ostensibly lawful consumers are/have lapsed in their duty to make sure nobody "untoward" gets hold of their gun, is to require folks to document/attest to how and when they came by their gun and how and when they yielded/lost possession of it.

For example, if you buy a couple guns and register both of them, great. Enjoy your weapons. If one of them gets stolen and you don't report the theft, there comes about the first "building block" in a plausible argument that you (1) were negligent in exercising due care over securing your weapon, (2) conspired to allow your gun to be stolen. Now one theft is not really indicative of either, so the presumption of innocence still accrues to you. In time, you replace you stolen weapon and buy several others and register them. If they don't keep getting stolen, there's little cause to think you are routinely negligent or willfully part of a supply chain for getting legal guns into the hands of illegal users.

You are a silly person......registration is not needed to do anything you just suggested and in fact is not being used to stop criminals now........the gun traffickers that have been captured, that I have posted about....have all been captured by police using snitches and undercover buys..........not one was done by following a registered gun.

and losing a gun or having a gun stolen does not make you a criminal.....And if they catch multiple criminals who all say yeah...that guy gave me the gun....there was no need to register guns to find that out...is there.....and that is how all other crimes are solved...actual police work.....


the absolute only reason to register guns is to eventually ban them....as happened in Britain, Germany, Australia, California, New York......

.there is a history that shows what registration allows......and it always ends in confiscation.......

I'm not silly at all. A registry isn't ever going to stop criminals. All it's going to go is give law enforcement a place to look to identify where the process of maintaining security over one's firearm ownership/possession breaks down.

Pink:
Maybe that's because there's no efficient and effective way to "mine" the data about gun ownership to determine whether/if there are any patterns associated with one or a group of "somehow related" individuals' losing possession of guns they lawfully obtained.

Red:
Yes, that's true if one is limited to taking a reactive approach to identifying the nature of an illegal weapons trade supply chain. If one wants to take a proactive approach to finding out where to look before once legal weapons make their way to illegal users and then get used to commit a crime or kill another person, one must have a means for identifying logical places to look. A registry provides a useful tool for enabling a proactive approach to the problem.

Blue:
Slippery Slope.

What has happened in other places is no indication of what will happen in the U.S. Moreover, those places don't have our 2nd Amendment so it is no surprise that the outcome you identified was a possible outcome in those place.

Nobody wants to take away one's guns. Officials and everyone else has a vested interest in making sure where they are, in whose possession they are.

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

Red:
I confused the figure I'd seen from the BJS for total violent victimizations with the figure for gun related violent victimizations. The figure for gun-related crime in 2014 was about 466K. I also miscited the quantity of guns reported lost or stolen. The correct figure for 2014 is ~19K.

Blue:
References please.

It is implausible to me that the 19K guns reported lost or stolen experience an average 24-times-per-gun reuse rate.

Green:
Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

Every single thing you've described pertains to a reactive approach to managing the problem of guns being used illegally. A reactive approach necessarily entails a firearm's being used in the commission of a crime and does nothing to prevent a given crime from being committed with a firearm. A proactive/preemptive approach identifies the ways and means would be illegal gun users obtain guns and takes action to reduce and/or eliminate those ways and means.

One cannot identify the ways and means if one lacks visibility to the supply chain process(s) that allow them to exist; thus the point of registration. If one cannot see where the supply chain gaps are that allow guns to get to people who would use them for criminal purposes, one cannot close those gaps.

Pink:
The police lack the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute a crime. They lack the authority to reduce an admitted/convicted criminal's penalty period. How then can any police work actually work that way?

Orange:
I can't say I'd make failing to register a crime a felony, but I do want to see a significant penalty imposed for not registering and regularly demonstrating possession of one's legally purchased firearms. Something must account for the following fact pattern:

1. all guns "begin life" as legal firearms;
2. some 19K of them are reported as lost or stolen; and
3. some 466K violent crimes occur using firearms.

If you are going to assert that some 19K guns are the ones used in some 466K gun-related crimes, you'll need to show that to be so via empirical evidence that it is so. Common sense tells one that the most likely thing going on is that 400K+ guns go unreported as lost/stolen and those guns are ending up in the hands of people who have no business possessing a gun. Why do so many guns appear to go unreported as lost or stolen? I don't know, but I do know that it's either deliberate that they do, or it's because the lawful owners don't know they lost or had stolen from them their gun(s). Registration makes it possible to identify specifically what individuals/groups are the sources of that aspect of the problem of guns getting to unauthorized holders.

I am not suggesting that registration will identify every single cause for the discrepancy, but it will over time identify patterns and gaps in the supply chain that help to identify what accounts for the discrepancy. Once one knows what accounts for the discrepancy, one can begin to deal with eliminating it.

Brown:
Haynes or no Haynes, individuals who lack the authorization to possess a firearm will not register any firearms they possess. That said, they only way they came to possess the firearms is due to one or more failings in the supply chain processes that are intended to deny them possession of that/those firearms. Those failings, gaps, in the supply chain exist either deliberately or accidentally. The deliberately caused gaps will appear as a pattern; the accidental ones will not. Both gaps can be overcome, albeit via different courses of action taken in response to discovering them.

If one is not going to require registration and recurring demonstration of possession by lawful holders of guns, how do you propose we proactively identify the gaps in the supply chain that allow unlawful holders to gain possession of firearms?

 

[2aguy]

You are a silly person......registration is not needed to do anything you just suggested and in fact is not being used to stop criminals now........the gun traffickers that have been captured, that I have posted about....have all been captured by police using snitches and undercover buys..........not one was done by following a registered gun.

and losing a gun or having a gun stolen does not make you a criminal.....And if they catch multiple criminals who all say yeah...that guy gave me the gun....there was no need to register guns to find that out...is there.....and that is how all other crimes are solved...actual police work.....


the absolute only reason to register guns is to eventually ban them....as happened in Britain, Germany, Australia, California, New York......

.there is a history that shows what registration allows......and it always ends in confiscation.......

I'm not silly at all. A registry isn't ever going to stop criminals. All it's going to go is give law enforcement a place to look to identify where the process of maintaining security over one's firearm ownership/possession breaks down.

Pink:
Maybe that's because there's no efficient and effective way to "mine" the data about gun ownership to determine whether/if there are any patterns associated with one or a group of "somehow related" individuals' losing possession of guns they lawfully obtained.

Red:
Yes, that's true if one is limited to taking a reactive approach to identifying the nature of an illegal weapons trade supply chain. If one wants to take a proactive approach to finding out where to look before once legal weapons make their way to illegal users and then get used to commit a crime or kill another person, one must have a means for identifying logical places to look. A registry provides a useful tool for enabling a proactive approach to the problem.

Blue:
Slippery Slope.

What has happened in other places is no indication of what will happen in the U.S. Moreover, those places don't have our 2nd Amendment so it is no surprise that the outcome you identified was a possible outcome in those place.

Nobody wants to take away one's guns. Officials and everyone else has a vested interest in making sure where they are, in whose possession they are.

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

Red:
I confused the figure I'd seen from the BJS for total violent victimizations with the figure for gun related violent victimizations. The figure for gun-related crime in 2014 was about 466K. I also miscited the quantity of guns reported lost or stolen. The correct figure for 2014 is ~19K.

Blue:
References please.

It is implausible to me that the 19K guns reported lost or stolen experience an average 24-times-per-gun reuse rate.

Green:
Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

Every single thing you've described pertains to a reactive approach to managing the problem of guns being used illegally. A reactive approach necessarily entails a firearm's being used in the commission of a crime and does nothing to prevent a given crime from being committed with a firearm. A proactive/preemptive approach identifies the ways and means would be illegal gun users obtain guns and takes action to reduce and/or eliminate those ways and means.

One cannot identify the ways and means if one lacks visibility to the supply chain process(s) that allow them to exist; thus the point of registration. If one cannot see where the supply chain gaps are that allow guns to get to people who would use them for criminal purposes, one cannot close those gaps.

Pink:
The police lack the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute a crime. They lack the authority to reduce an admitted/convicted criminal's penalty period. How then can any police work actually work that way?

Orange:
I can't say I'd make failing to register a crime a felony, but I do want to see a significant penalty imposed for not registering and regularly demonstrating possession of one's legally purchased firearms. Something must account for the following fact pattern:

1. all guns "begin life" as legal firearms;
2. some 19K of them are reported as lost or stolen; and
3. some 466K violent crimes occur using firearms.

If you are going to assert that some 19K guns are the ones used in some 466K gun-related crimes, you'll need to show that to be so via empirical evidence that it is so. Common sense tells one that the most likely thing going on is that 400K+ guns go unreported as lost/stolen and those guns are ending up in the hands of people who have no business possessing a gun. Why do so many guns appear to go unreported as lost or stolen? I don't know, but I do know that it's either deliberate that they do, or it's because the lawful owners don't know they lost or had stolen from them their gun(s). Registration makes it possible to identify specifically what individuals/groups are the sources of that aspect of the problem of guns getting to unauthorized holders.

I am not suggesting that registration will identify every single cause for the discrepancy, but it will over time identify patterns and gaps in the supply chain that help to identify what accounts for the discrepancy. Once one knows what accounts for the discrepancy, one can begin to deal with eliminating it.

Brown:
Haynes or no Haynes, individuals who lack the authorization to possess a firearm will not register any firearms they possess. That said, they only way they came to possess the firearms is due to one or more failings in the supply chain processes that are intended to deny them possession of that/those firearms. Those failings, gaps, in the supply chain exist either deliberately or accidentally. The deliberately caused gaps will appear as a pattern; the accidental ones will not. Both gaps can be overcome, albeit via different courses of action taken in response to discovering them.

If one is not going to require registration and recurring demonstration of possession by lawful holders of guns, how do you propose we proactively identify the gaps in the supply chain that allow unlawful holders to gain possession of firearms?

Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

I have yet to see a technique that isn't entirely focused on law abiding gun owners who do not commit crimes with guns.....that would essentially make those law abiding gun owners into felons for clerical errors, without them ever using a gun for an act of violence, never commiting a crime with a gun and never harming another human being with a gun....

Yet.....you want to make them felons if they don't register their guns......take their jobs, put them in prison, take their money, take their gun/guns, and make it impossible for them to hold another job.....just because they didn't register their legal product........even though they are not criminals and have never and will never commit a crime with that gun.....

And what do you get in return...

Criminals do not, by law, have to register illegaly guns...(Haynes v. United States) and even if you register all the guns, criminals do not register their guns, they steal them....no registration required....or get them from straw buyers...again, no registration required by the criminal.......

You claim we can then track guns to the supplier....well...Canada registered long guns....and gave it up with no crimes solved no supply chains stopped...

France....you can't register guns because they are illegal.....and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists and the Paris Terrorists all got illegal, fully automatic rifles in a country without gun stores, gun shows, gun licensing, gun registration or universal background checks.....


So registration is for one purpose only.......to know where the guns are so you can ban or confiscate them at a later date.


If you catch a criminal with a gun....you get them to tell you where they got them....as all the recent gun trafficking arrests have done.....they all involved snitches...and stopped illegal sales...

Which is what you are talking about...and not one legal gun owner had to register their guns to do it......

So your goal was achieved...illegal gun supply chains were closed, and illegal gun sales were stopped preemptively, just like you want....all without registering a single gun....

 

[TNHarley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes but, the pro-Global Warming crowd hate cars and thus hate car owners. I can envisage a moment, whereby they'll attempt to make car ownership illegal....not that I think this can ever actually be enacted. Millions of people aren't going to give up their independence in this way.

Naaah, you're reading more into it than there is.

The gun fetishists around here normally love to make the false comparison between firearm homicides and automotive fatalities -- never mind that the latter are made up of accidents in a technology not designed for killing at all, in fact designed to avoid it --- so here I threw that false comparison back in their collective face.

It sure quieted 'em down, didn't it?

The instant point was on the premise advanced that "registration is the first step to a ban", to which I countered with the car example. That kind of shot the tires out of that argument, to mix a metaphor.

Doesn't mine. Registration is the first step to a ban.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not silly at all. A registry isn't ever going to stop criminals. All it's going to go is give law enforcement a place to look to identify where the process of maintaining security over one's firearm ownership/possession breaks down.

Pink:
Maybe that's because there's no efficient and effective way to "mine" the data about gun ownership to determine whether/if there are any patterns associated with one or a group of "somehow related" individuals' losing possession of guns they lawfully obtained.

Red:
Yes, that's true if one is limited to taking a reactive approach to identifying the nature of an illegal weapons trade supply chain. If one wants to take a proactive approach to finding out where to look before once legal weapons make their way to illegal users and then get used to commit a crime or kill another person, one must have a means for identifying logical places to look. A registry provides a useful tool for enabling a proactive approach to the problem.

Blue:
Slippery Slope.

What has happened in other places is no indication of what will happen in the U.S. Moreover, those places don't have our 2nd Amendment so it is no surprise that the outcome you identified was a possible outcome in those place.

Nobody wants to take away one's guns. Officials and everyone else has a vested interest in making sure where they are, in whose possession they are.

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

Red:
I confused the figure I'd seen from the BJS for total violent victimizations with the figure for gun related violent victimizations. The figure for gun-related crime in 2014 was about 466K. I also miscited the quantity of guns reported lost or stolen. The correct figure for 2014 is ~19K.

Blue:
References please.

It is implausible to me that the 19K guns reported lost or stolen experience an average 24-times-per-gun reuse rate.

Green:
Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

Every single thing you've described pertains to a reactive approach to managing the problem of guns being used illegally. A reactive approach necessarily entails a firearm's being used in the commission of a crime and does nothing to prevent a given crime from being committed with a firearm. A proactive/preemptive approach identifies the ways and means would be illegal gun users obtain guns and takes action to reduce and/or eliminate those ways and means.

One cannot identify the ways and means if one lacks visibility to the supply chain process(s) that allow them to exist; thus the point of registration. If one cannot see where the supply chain gaps are that allow guns to get to people who would use them for criminal purposes, one cannot close those gaps.

Pink:
The police lack the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute a crime. They lack the authority to reduce an admitted/convicted criminal's penalty period. How then can any police work actually work that way?

Orange:
I can't say I'd make failing to register a crime a felony, but I do want to see a significant penalty imposed for not registering and regularly demonstrating possession of one's legally purchased firearms. Something must account for the following fact pattern:

1. all guns "begin life" as legal firearms;
2. some 19K of them are reported as lost or stolen; and
3. some 466K violent crimes occur using firearms.

If you are going to assert that some 19K guns are the ones used in some 466K gun-related crimes, you'll need to show that to be so via empirical evidence that it is so. Common sense tells one that the most likely thing going on is that 400K+ guns go unreported as lost/stolen and those guns are ending up in the hands of people who have no business possessing a gun. Why do so many guns appear to go unreported as lost or stolen? I don't know, but I do know that it's either deliberate that they do, or it's because the lawful owners don't know they lost or had stolen from them their gun(s). Registration makes it possible to identify specifically what individuals/groups are the sources of that aspect of the problem of guns getting to unauthorized holders.

I am not suggesting that registration will identify every single cause for the discrepancy, but it will over time identify patterns and gaps in the supply chain that help to identify what accounts for the discrepancy. Once one knows what accounts for the discrepancy, one can begin to deal with eliminating it.

Brown:
Haynes or no Haynes, individuals who lack the authorization to possess a firearm will not register any firearms they possess. That said, they only way they came to possess the firearms is due to one or more failings in the supply chain processes that are intended to deny them possession of that/those firearms. Those failings, gaps, in the supply chain exist either deliberately or accidentally. The deliberately caused gaps will appear as a pattern; the accidental ones will not. Both gaps can be overcome, albeit via different courses of action taken in response to discovering them.

If one is not going to require registration and recurring demonstration of possession by lawful holders of guns, how do you propose we proactively identify the gaps in the supply chain that allow unlawful holders to gain possession of firearms?

Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

I have yet to see a technique that isn't entirely focused on law abiding gun owners who do not commit crimes with guns.....that would essentially make those law abiding gun owners into felons for clerical errors, without them ever using a gun for an act of violence, never commiting a crime with a gun and never harming another human being with a gun....

Yet.....you want to make them felons if they don't register their guns......take their jobs, put them in prison, take their money, take their gun/guns, and make it impossible for them to hold another job.....just because they didn't register their legal product........even though they are not criminals and have never and will never commit a crime with that gun.....

And what do you get in return...

Criminals do not, by law, have to register illegaly guns...(Haynes v. United States) and even if you register all the guns, criminals do not register their guns, they steal them....no registration required....or get them from straw buyers...again, no registration required by the criminal.......

You claim we can then track guns to the supplier....well...Canada registered long guns....and gave it up with no crimes solved no supply chains stopped...

France....you can't register guns because they are illegal.....and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists and the Paris Terrorists all got illegal, fully automatic rifles in a country without gun stores, gun shows, gun licensing, gun registration or universal background checks.....


So registration is for one purpose only.......to know where the guns are so you can ban or confiscate them at a later date.


If you catch a criminal with a gun....you get them to tell you where they got them....as all the recent gun trafficking arrests have done.....they all involved snitches...and stopped illegal sales...

Which is what you are talking about...and not one legal gun owner had to register their guns to do it......

So your goal was achieved...illegal gun supply chains were closed, and illegal gun sales were stopped preemptively, just like you want....all without registering a single gun....

Red:
We are done for several reasons:

• It's clear you don't understand what "preemptive" means. If you catch a criminal with a gun, you must have, under the current paradigm, also have caught them after they performed a crime other than mere illegal gun possession. That is not preemptive, that is reactive because at the point you catch them, they have already illegally secured possession of a gun by exploiting one or more gaps in the supply chain.
• You have not once identified a direct rebuttal to the efficacy and value of using information (namely the ino in a registry) as a means for law enforcement to act preemptively to deny or reduce access to guns. I suppose because you don't understand temporal nature of the terms "proactive" and "preemptive."
• You consistently identify extreme examples of gun acquisition and use rather than addressing the far more common events, namely a "typical" criminal -- not a terrorist, not a mass murderer -- coming by a gun s/he is not authorized to possess and using it to commit a crime. The extreme cases are not going to go away; that's why they are the extreme. Regardless of how many mass murder or terrorist events occur, they do not collectively account for the bulk of criminal acts that occur with an illegally obtained gun.
• You repeatedly identify what you, perhaps others, see as a hypothetical outcome of a registry -- that it might be used to confiscate all guns, and especially those held by lawful owners -- when the fact is that lawful possession of guns is protected right; thus a registry cannot be used to that end...that is unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.
• You fail to see that "straw buyers" are one of the gaps that would appear as a gap in the supply chain. They would appear by dint of the "straw buyer" having a recurring pattern over time of losing possession of their gun and thus not being able to regularly and consistently show they have possession of the firearms they lawfully purchased.
• You fail to see that while some thefts occur randomly, others occur with a pattern and that a registry will make easily available the details that identify what that pattern is and who (be it specific individuals or a specific class of individuals) are party to that pattern.
• You raise red herring arguments about what happens in Canada and France as though their laws and process of buying, selling and transferring ownership/possession of firearms are applicable to the same processes -- order to cash, procure to pay -- in the U.S. A U.S. gun registry has no intention of resolving similar problems in any country other than the U.S.
• You have not provided a direct answer to a very simple and direct question, one which you singled out and still did not answer directly. You'll recall that it was: Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them? (Of course, as evidenced by your remarks in and preceding the enlarged font text above, you don't understand what it means to be preemptive, I guess that's why you didn't offer a direct reply to the question....)

 

[2aguy]

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

Red:
I confused the figure I'd seen from the BJS for total violent victimizations with the figure for gun related violent victimizations. The figure for gun-related crime in 2014 was about 466K. I also miscited the quantity of guns reported lost or stolen. The correct figure for 2014 is ~19K.

Blue:
References please.

It is implausible to me that the 19K guns reported lost or stolen experience an average 24-times-per-gun reuse rate.

Green:
Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

Every single thing you've described pertains to a reactive approach to managing the problem of guns being used illegally. A reactive approach necessarily entails a firearm's being used in the commission of a crime and does nothing to prevent a given crime from being committed with a firearm. A proactive/preemptive approach identifies the ways and means would be illegal gun users obtain guns and takes action to reduce and/or eliminate those ways and means.

One cannot identify the ways and means if one lacks visibility to the supply chain process(s) that allow them to exist; thus the point of registration. If one cannot see where the supply chain gaps are that allow guns to get to people who would use them for criminal purposes, one cannot close those gaps.

Pink:
The police lack the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute a crime. They lack the authority to reduce an admitted/convicted criminal's penalty period. How then can any police work actually work that way?

Orange:
I can't say I'd make failing to register a crime a felony, but I do want to see a significant penalty imposed for not registering and regularly demonstrating possession of one's legally purchased firearms. Something must account for the following fact pattern:

1. all guns "begin life" as legal firearms;
2. some 19K of them are reported as lost or stolen; and
3. some 466K violent crimes occur using firearms.

If you are going to assert that some 19K guns are the ones used in some 466K gun-related crimes, you'll need to show that to be so via empirical evidence that it is so. Common sense tells one that the most likely thing going on is that 400K+ guns go unreported as lost/stolen and those guns are ending up in the hands of people who have no business possessing a gun. Why do so many guns appear to go unreported as lost or stolen? I don't know, but I do know that it's either deliberate that they do, or it's because the lawful owners don't know they lost or had stolen from them their gun(s). Registration makes it possible to identify specifically what individuals/groups are the sources of that aspect of the problem of guns getting to unauthorized holders.

I am not suggesting that registration will identify every single cause for the discrepancy, but it will over time identify patterns and gaps in the supply chain that help to identify what accounts for the discrepancy. Once one knows what accounts for the discrepancy, one can begin to deal with eliminating it.

Brown:
Haynes or no Haynes, individuals who lack the authorization to possess a firearm will not register any firearms they possess. That said, they only way they came to possess the firearms is due to one or more failings in the supply chain processes that are intended to deny them possession of that/those firearms. Those failings, gaps, in the supply chain exist either deliberately or accidentally. The deliberately caused gaps will appear as a pattern; the accidental ones will not. Both gaps can be overcome, albeit via different courses of action taken in response to discovering them.

If one is not going to require registration and recurring demonstration of possession by lawful holders of guns, how do you propose we proactively identify the gaps in the supply chain that allow unlawful holders to gain possession of firearms?

Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

I have yet to see a technique that isn't entirely focused on law abiding gun owners who do not commit crimes with guns.....that would essentially make those law abiding gun owners into felons for clerical errors, without them ever using a gun for an act of violence, never commiting a crime with a gun and never harming another human being with a gun....

Yet.....you want to make them felons if they don't register their guns......take their jobs, put them in prison, take their money, take their gun/guns, and make it impossible for them to hold another job.....just because they didn't register their legal product........even though they are not criminals and have never and will never commit a crime with that gun.....

And what do you get in return...

Criminals do not, by law, have to register illegaly guns...(Haynes v. United States) and even if you register all the guns, criminals do not register their guns, they steal them....no registration required....or get them from straw buyers...again, no registration required by the criminal.......

You claim we can then track guns to the supplier....well...Canada registered long guns....and gave it up with no crimes solved no supply chains stopped...

France....you can't register guns because they are illegal.....and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists and the Paris Terrorists all got illegal, fully automatic rifles in a country without gun stores, gun shows, gun licensing, gun registration or universal background checks.....


So registration is for one purpose only.......to know where the guns are so you can ban or confiscate them at a later date.


If you catch a criminal with a gun....you get them to tell you where they got them....as all the recent gun trafficking arrests have done.....they all involved snitches...and stopped illegal sales...

Which is what you are talking about...and not one legal gun owner had to register their guns to do it......

So your goal was achieved...illegal gun supply chains were closed, and illegal gun sales were stopped preemptively, just like you want....all without registering a single gun....

Red:
We are done for several reasons:

• It's clear you don't understand what "preemptive" means. If you catch a criminal with a gun, you must have, under the current paradigm, also have caught them after they performed a crime other than mere illegal gun possession. That is not preemptive, that is reactive because at the point you catch them, they have already illegally secured possession of a gun by exploiting one or more gaps in the supply chain.
• You have not once identified a direct rebuttal to the efficacy and value of using information (namely the ino in a registry) as a means for law enforcement to act preemptively to deny or reduce access to guns. I suppose because you don't understand temporal nature of the terms "proactive" and "preemptive."
• You consistently identify extreme examples of gun acquisition and use rather than addressing the far more common events, namely a "typical" criminal -- not a terrorist, not a mass murderer -- coming by a gun s/he is not authorized to possess and using it to commit a crime. The extreme cases are not going to go away; that's why they are the extreme. Regardless of how many mass murder or terrorist events occur, they do not collectively account for the bulk of criminal acts that occur with an illegally obtained gun.
• You repeatedly identify what you, perhaps others, see as a hypothetical outcome of a registry -- that it might be used to confiscate all guns, and especially those held by lawful owners -- when the fact is that lawful possession of guns is protected right; thus a registry cannot be used to that end...that is unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.
• You fail to see that "straw buyers" are one of the gaps that would appear as a gap in the supply chain. They would appear by dint of the "straw buyer" having a recurring pattern over time of losing possession of their gun and thus not being able to regularly and consistently show they have possession of the firearms they lawfully purchased.
• You fail to see that while some thefts occur randomly, others occur with a pattern and that a registry will make easily available the details that identify what that pattern is and who (be it specific individuals or a specific class of individuals) are party to that pattern.
• You raise red herring arguments about what happens in Canada and France as though their laws and process of buying, selling and transferring ownership/possession of firearms are applicable to the same processes -- order to cash, procure to pay -- in the U.S. A U.S. gun registry has no intention of resolving similar problems in any country other than the U.S.
• You have not provided a direct answer to a very simple and direct question, one which you singled out and still did not answer directly. You'll recall that it was: Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them? (Of course, as evidenced by your remarks in and preceding the enlarged font text above, you don't understand what it means to be preemptive, I guess that's why you didn't offer a direct reply to the question....)

It's clear you don't understand what "preemptive" means. If you catch a criminal with a gun, you must have, under the current paradigm, also have caught them after they performed a crime other than mere illegal gun possession. That is not preemptive, that is reactive because at the point you catch them, they have already illegally secured possession of a gun by exploiting one or more gaps in the supply chain.

Wrong....if a criminal is stopped and caught in possession of a gun...they can be arrested on the spot.....that is preemptive......as is using snitches to catch illegal gun sellers, neither of which requires you to register guns of non criminals.

You have not once identified a direct rebuttal to the efficacy and value of using information (namely the ino in a registry) as a means for law enforcement to act preemptively to deny or reduce access to guns. I suppose because you don't understand temporal nature of the terms "proactive" and "preemptive."

Gun registration has not stopped one gun crime......ask Canada....

• 
  

  You repeatedly identify what you, perhaps others, see as a hypothetical outcome of a registry -- that it might be used to confiscate all guns, and especially those held by lawful owners -- when the fact is that lawful possession of guns is protected right; thus a registry cannot be used to that end...that is unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

• It has already been used in several states to confiscate and ban "Assault Rifles"......and in Britain, Australia, Germany and other countries........there is an actual history to registration of guns and it always ends in confiscation....

 

[2aguy]

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

Red:
I confused the figure I'd seen from the BJS for total violent victimizations with the figure for gun related violent victimizations. The figure for gun-related crime in 2014 was about 466K. I also miscited the quantity of guns reported lost or stolen. The correct figure for 2014 is ~19K.

Blue:
References please.

It is implausible to me that the 19K guns reported lost or stolen experience an average 24-times-per-gun reuse rate.

Green:
Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

Every single thing you've described pertains to a reactive approach to managing the problem of guns being used illegally. A reactive approach necessarily entails a firearm's being used in the commission of a crime and does nothing to prevent a given crime from being committed with a firearm. A proactive/preemptive approach identifies the ways and means would be illegal gun users obtain guns and takes action to reduce and/or eliminate those ways and means.

One cannot identify the ways and means if one lacks visibility to the supply chain process(s) that allow them to exist; thus the point of registration. If one cannot see where the supply chain gaps are that allow guns to get to people who would use them for criminal purposes, one cannot close those gaps.

Pink:
The police lack the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute a crime. They lack the authority to reduce an admitted/convicted criminal's penalty period. How then can any police work actually work that way?

Orange:
I can't say I'd make failing to register a crime a felony, but I do want to see a significant penalty imposed for not registering and regularly demonstrating possession of one's legally purchased firearms. Something must account for the following fact pattern:

1. all guns "begin life" as legal firearms;
2. some 19K of them are reported as lost or stolen; and
3. some 466K violent crimes occur using firearms.

If you are going to assert that some 19K guns are the ones used in some 466K gun-related crimes, you'll need to show that to be so via empirical evidence that it is so. Common sense tells one that the most likely thing going on is that 400K+ guns go unreported as lost/stolen and those guns are ending up in the hands of people who have no business possessing a gun. Why do so many guns appear to go unreported as lost or stolen? I don't know, but I do know that it's either deliberate that they do, or it's because the lawful owners don't know they lost or had stolen from them their gun(s). Registration makes it possible to identify specifically what individuals/groups are the sources of that aspect of the problem of guns getting to unauthorized holders.

I am not suggesting that registration will identify every single cause for the discrepancy, but it will over time identify patterns and gaps in the supply chain that help to identify what accounts for the discrepancy. Once one knows what accounts for the discrepancy, one can begin to deal with eliminating it.

Brown:
Haynes or no Haynes, individuals who lack the authorization to possess a firearm will not register any firearms they possess. That said, they only way they came to possess the firearms is due to one or more failings in the supply chain processes that are intended to deny them possession of that/those firearms. Those failings, gaps, in the supply chain exist either deliberately or accidentally. The deliberately caused gaps will appear as a pattern; the accidental ones will not. Both gaps can be overcome, albeit via different courses of action taken in response to discovering them.

If one is not going to require registration and recurring demonstration of possession by lawful holders of guns, how do you propose we proactively identify the gaps in the supply chain that allow unlawful holders to gain possession of firearms?

Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

I have yet to see a technique that isn't entirely focused on law abiding gun owners who do not commit crimes with guns.....that would essentially make those law abiding gun owners into felons for clerical errors, without them ever using a gun for an act of violence, never commiting a crime with a gun and never harming another human being with a gun....

Yet.....you want to make them felons if they don't register their guns......take their jobs, put them in prison, take their money, take their gun/guns, and make it impossible for them to hold another job.....just because they didn't register their legal product........even though they are not criminals and have never and will never commit a crime with that gun.....

And what do you get in return...

Criminals do not, by law, have to register illegaly guns...(Haynes v. United States) and even if you register all the guns, criminals do not register their guns, they steal them....no registration required....or get them from straw buyers...again, no registration required by the criminal.......

You claim we can then track guns to the supplier....well...Canada registered long guns....and gave it up with no crimes solved no supply chains stopped...

France....you can't register guns because they are illegal.....and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists and the Paris Terrorists all got illegal, fully automatic rifles in a country without gun stores, gun shows, gun licensing, gun registration or universal background checks.....


So registration is for one purpose only.......to know where the guns are so you can ban or confiscate them at a later date.


If you catch a criminal with a gun....you get them to tell you where they got them....as all the recent gun trafficking arrests have done.....they all involved snitches...and stopped illegal sales...

Which is what you are talking about...and not one legal gun owner had to register their guns to do it......

So your goal was achieved...illegal gun supply chains were closed, and illegal gun sales were stopped preemptively, just like you want....all without registering a single gun....

Red:
We are done for several reasons:

• It's clear you don't understand what "preemptive" means. If you catch a criminal with a gun, you must have, under the current paradigm, also have caught them after they performed a crime other than mere illegal gun possession. That is not preemptive, that is reactive because at the point you catch them, they have already illegally secured possession of a gun by exploiting one or more gaps in the supply chain.
• You have not once identified a direct rebuttal to the efficacy and value of using information (namely the ino in a registry) as a means for law enforcement to act preemptively to deny or reduce access to guns. I suppose because you don't understand temporal nature of the terms "proactive" and "preemptive."
• You consistently identify extreme examples of gun acquisition and use rather than addressing the far more common events, namely a "typical" criminal -- not a terrorist, not a mass murderer -- coming by a gun s/he is not authorized to possess and using it to commit a crime. The extreme cases are not going to go away; that's why they are the extreme. Regardless of how many mass murder or terrorist events occur, they do not collectively account for the bulk of criminal acts that occur with an illegally obtained gun.
• You repeatedly identify what you, perhaps others, see as a hypothetical outcome of a registry -- that it might be used to confiscate all guns, and especially those held by lawful owners -- when the fact is that lawful possession of guns is protected right; thus a registry cannot be used to that end...that is unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.
• You fail to see that "straw buyers" are one of the gaps that would appear as a gap in the supply chain. They would appear by dint of the "straw buyer" having a recurring pattern over time of losing possession of their gun and thus not being able to regularly and consistently show they have possession of the firearms they lawfully purchased.
• You fail to see that while some thefts occur randomly, others occur with a pattern and that a registry will make easily available the details that identify what that pattern is and who (be it specific individuals or a specific class of individuals) are party to that pattern.
• You raise red herring arguments about what happens in Canada and France as though their laws and process of buying, selling and transferring ownership/possession of firearms are applicable to the same processes -- order to cash, procure to pay -- in the U.S. A U.S. gun registry has no intention of resolving similar problems in any country other than the U.S.
• You have not provided a direct answer to a very simple and direct question, one which you singled out and still did not answer directly. You'll recall that it was: Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them? (Of course, as evidenced by your remarks in and preceding the enlarged font text above, you don't understand what it means to be preemptive, I guess that's why you didn't offer a direct reply to the question....)

You consistently identify extreme examples of gun acquisition and use rather than addressing the far more common events, namely a "typical" criminal -- not a terrorist, not a mass murderer -- coming by a gun s/he is not authorized to possess and using it to commit a crime. The extreme cases are not going to go away; that's why they are the extreme. Regardless of how many mass murder or terrorist events occur, they do not collectively account for the bulk of criminal acts that occur with an illegally obtained gun.

Not extreme examples....common criminals get their gun by stealing them or through straw buyers...they do not register their guns and are not legally required to register illegal guns....only non criminals are...and you support that madness...

You fail to see that while some thefts occur randomly, others occur with a pattern and that a registry will make easily available the details that identify what that pattern is and who (be it specific individuals or a specific class of individuals) are party to that pattern.

Wrong.....when criminals all point the same guy out providing guns....you know..snitches....then they can arrest that person....but registering all guns to get the few people who are breaking the law who can be caught using normal police techniques that do not require registering 357 million guns is just nuts...

That you want to target the non criminal owners of guns to catch a tiny segment of the population is nuts. Especially since you can already catch them without registering any guns...

 

[2aguy]

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

Red:
I confused the figure I'd seen from the BJS for total violent victimizations with the figure for gun related violent victimizations. The figure for gun-related crime in 2014 was about 466K. I also miscited the quantity of guns reported lost or stolen. The correct figure for 2014 is ~19K.

Blue:
References please.

It is implausible to me that the 19K guns reported lost or stolen experience an average 24-times-per-gun reuse rate.

Green:
Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

Every single thing you've described pertains to a reactive approach to managing the problem of guns being used illegally. A reactive approach necessarily entails a firearm's being used in the commission of a crime and does nothing to prevent a given crime from being committed with a firearm. A proactive/preemptive approach identifies the ways and means would be illegal gun users obtain guns and takes action to reduce and/or eliminate those ways and means.

One cannot identify the ways and means if one lacks visibility to the supply chain process(s) that allow them to exist; thus the point of registration. If one cannot see where the supply chain gaps are that allow guns to get to people who would use them for criminal purposes, one cannot close those gaps.

Pink:
The police lack the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute a crime. They lack the authority to reduce an admitted/convicted criminal's penalty period. How then can any police work actually work that way?

Orange:
I can't say I'd make failing to register a crime a felony, but I do want to see a significant penalty imposed for not registering and regularly demonstrating possession of one's legally purchased firearms. Something must account for the following fact pattern:

1. all guns "begin life" as legal firearms;
2. some 19K of them are reported as lost or stolen; and
3. some 466K violent crimes occur using firearms.

If you are going to assert that some 19K guns are the ones used in some 466K gun-related crimes, you'll need to show that to be so via empirical evidence that it is so. Common sense tells one that the most likely thing going on is that 400K+ guns go unreported as lost/stolen and those guns are ending up in the hands of people who have no business possessing a gun. Why do so many guns appear to go unreported as lost or stolen? I don't know, but I do know that it's either deliberate that they do, or it's because the lawful owners don't know they lost or had stolen from them their gun(s). Registration makes it possible to identify specifically what individuals/groups are the sources of that aspect of the problem of guns getting to unauthorized holders.

I am not suggesting that registration will identify every single cause for the discrepancy, but it will over time identify patterns and gaps in the supply chain that help to identify what accounts for the discrepancy. Once one knows what accounts for the discrepancy, one can begin to deal with eliminating it.

Brown:
Haynes or no Haynes, individuals who lack the authorization to possess a firearm will not register any firearms they possess. That said, they only way they came to possess the firearms is due to one or more failings in the supply chain processes that are intended to deny them possession of that/those firearms. Those failings, gaps, in the supply chain exist either deliberately or accidentally. The deliberately caused gaps will appear as a pattern; the accidental ones will not. Both gaps can be overcome, albeit via different courses of action taken in response to discovering them.

If one is not going to require registration and recurring demonstration of possession by lawful holders of guns, how do you propose we proactively identify the gaps in the supply chain that allow unlawful holders to gain possession of firearms?

Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

I have yet to see a technique that isn't entirely focused on law abiding gun owners who do not commit crimes with guns.....that would essentially make those law abiding gun owners into felons for clerical errors, without them ever using a gun for an act of violence, never commiting a crime with a gun and never harming another human being with a gun....

Yet.....you want to make them felons if they don't register their guns......take their jobs, put them in prison, take their money, take their gun/guns, and make it impossible for them to hold another job.....just because they didn't register their legal product........even though they are not criminals and have never and will never commit a crime with that gun.....

And what do you get in return...

Criminals do not, by law, have to register illegaly guns...(Haynes v. United States) and even if you register all the guns, criminals do not register their guns, they steal them....no registration required....or get them from straw buyers...again, no registration required by the criminal.......

You claim we can then track guns to the supplier....well...Canada registered long guns....and gave it up with no crimes solved no supply chains stopped...

France....you can't register guns because they are illegal.....and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists and the Paris Terrorists all got illegal, fully automatic rifles in a country without gun stores, gun shows, gun licensing, gun registration or universal background checks.....


So registration is for one purpose only.......to know where the guns are so you can ban or confiscate them at a later date.


If you catch a criminal with a gun....you get them to tell you where they got them....as all the recent gun trafficking arrests have done.....they all involved snitches...and stopped illegal sales...

Which is what you are talking about...and not one legal gun owner had to register their guns to do it......

So your goal was achieved...illegal gun supply chains were closed, and illegal gun sales were stopped preemptively, just like you want....all without registering a single gun....

Red:
We are done for several reasons:

• It's clear you don't understand what "preemptive" means. If you catch a criminal with a gun, you must have, under the current paradigm, also have caught them after they performed a crime other than mere illegal gun possession. That is not preemptive, that is reactive because at the point you catch them, they have already illegally secured possession of a gun by exploiting one or more gaps in the supply chain.
• You have not once identified a direct rebuttal to the efficacy and value of using information (namely the ino in a registry) as a means for law enforcement to act preemptively to deny or reduce access to guns. I suppose because you don't understand temporal nature of the terms "proactive" and "preemptive."
• You consistently identify extreme examples of gun acquisition and use rather than addressing the far more common events, namely a "typical" criminal -- not a terrorist, not a mass murderer -- coming by a gun s/he is not authorized to possess and using it to commit a crime. The extreme cases are not going to go away; that's why they are the extreme. Regardless of how many mass murder or terrorist events occur, they do not collectively account for the bulk of criminal acts that occur with an illegally obtained gun.
• You repeatedly identify what you, perhaps others, see as a hypothetical outcome of a registry -- that it might be used to confiscate all guns, and especially those held by lawful owners -- when the fact is that lawful possession of guns is protected right; thus a registry cannot be used to that end...that is unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.
• You fail to see that "straw buyers" are one of the gaps that would appear as a gap in the supply chain. They would appear by dint of the "straw buyer" having a recurring pattern over time of losing possession of their gun and thus not being able to regularly and consistently show they have possession of the firearms they lawfully purchased.
• You fail to see that while some thefts occur randomly, others occur with a pattern and that a registry will make easily available the details that identify what that pattern is and who (be it specific individuals or a specific class of individuals) are party to that pattern.
• You raise red herring arguments about what happens in Canada and France as though their laws and process of buying, selling and transferring ownership/possession of firearms are applicable to the same processes -- order to cash, procure to pay -- in the U.S. A U.S. gun registry has no intention of resolving similar problems in any country other than the U.S.
• You have not provided a direct answer to a very simple and direct question, one which you singled out and still did not answer directly. You'll recall that it was: Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them? (Of course, as evidenced by your remarks in and preceding the enlarged font text above, you don't understand what it means to be preemptive, I guess that's why you didn't offer a direct reply to the question....)

You raise red herring arguments about what happens in Canada and France as though their laws and process of buying, selling and transferring ownership/possession of firearms are applicable to the same processes -- order to cash, procure to pay -- in the U.S. A U.S. gun registry has no intention of resolving similar problems in any country other than the U.S.

Wrong.....France has zero ability to buy fully automatic military rifles....and their criminals and terrorists get them easily....so any registration process would mean nothing to actual criminals and terrorists in the United States...as well mass shooters....

 

[2aguy]

You have not provided a direct answer to a very simple and direct question, one which you singled out and still did not answer directly. You'll recall that it was: Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them? (Of course, as evidenced by your remarks in and preceding the enlarged font text above, you don't understand what it means to be preemptive, I guess that's why you didn't offer a direct reply to the question....)

Wrong....I already showed you that we already deny access to criminals through current law enforcement technique....I have posted story after story of illegal gun traffickers captured by police using informants and under cover stings......that is preemptive

I asser there is no reason to register the guns of normal, law abiding gun owners when it is unConstitutional for one thing,and that it does nothing to solve crimes, or prevent crimes with guns and that every other registration effort here and around the world has led to eventual confiscation of those registered guns......once the political will is created to do it.

 

[2aguy]

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

Red:
I confused the figure I'd seen from the BJS for total violent victimizations with the figure for gun related violent victimizations. The figure for gun-related crime in 2014 was about 466K. I also miscited the quantity of guns reported lost or stolen. The correct figure for 2014 is ~19K.

Blue:
References please.

It is implausible to me that the 19K guns reported lost or stolen experience an average 24-times-per-gun reuse rate.

Green:
Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

Every single thing you've described pertains to a reactive approach to managing the problem of guns being used illegally. A reactive approach necessarily entails a firearm's being used in the commission of a crime and does nothing to prevent a given crime from being committed with a firearm. A proactive/preemptive approach identifies the ways and means would be illegal gun users obtain guns and takes action to reduce and/or eliminate those ways and means.

One cannot identify the ways and means if one lacks visibility to the supply chain process(s) that allow them to exist; thus the point of registration. If one cannot see where the supply chain gaps are that allow guns to get to people who would use them for criminal purposes, one cannot close those gaps.

Pink:
The police lack the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute a crime. They lack the authority to reduce an admitted/convicted criminal's penalty period. How then can any police work actually work that way?

Orange:
I can't say I'd make failing to register a crime a felony, but I do want to see a significant penalty imposed for not registering and regularly demonstrating possession of one's legally purchased firearms. Something must account for the following fact pattern:

1. all guns "begin life" as legal firearms;
2. some 19K of them are reported as lost or stolen; and
3. some 466K violent crimes occur using firearms.

If you are going to assert that some 19K guns are the ones used in some 466K gun-related crimes, you'll need to show that to be so via empirical evidence that it is so. Common sense tells one that the most likely thing going on is that 400K+ guns go unreported as lost/stolen and those guns are ending up in the hands of people who have no business possessing a gun. Why do so many guns appear to go unreported as lost or stolen? I don't know, but I do know that it's either deliberate that they do, or it's because the lawful owners don't know they lost or had stolen from them their gun(s). Registration makes it possible to identify specifically what individuals/groups are the sources of that aspect of the problem of guns getting to unauthorized holders.

I am not suggesting that registration will identify every single cause for the discrepancy, but it will over time identify patterns and gaps in the supply chain that help to identify what accounts for the discrepancy. Once one knows what accounts for the discrepancy, one can begin to deal with eliminating it.

Brown:
Haynes or no Haynes, individuals who lack the authorization to possess a firearm will not register any firearms they possess. That said, they only way they came to possess the firearms is due to one or more failings in the supply chain processes that are intended to deny them possession of that/those firearms. Those failings, gaps, in the supply chain exist either deliberately or accidentally. The deliberately caused gaps will appear as a pattern; the accidental ones will not. Both gaps can be overcome, albeit via different courses of action taken in response to discovering them.

If one is not going to require registration and recurring demonstration of possession by lawful holders of guns, how do you propose we proactively identify the gaps in the supply chain that allow unlawful holders to gain possession of firearms?

Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

I have yet to see a technique that isn't entirely focused on law abiding gun owners who do not commit crimes with guns.....that would essentially make those law abiding gun owners into felons for clerical errors, without them ever using a gun for an act of violence, never commiting a crime with a gun and never harming another human being with a gun....

Yet.....you want to make them felons if they don't register their guns......take their jobs, put them in prison, take their money, take their gun/guns, and make it impossible for them to hold another job.....just because they didn't register their legal product........even though they are not criminals and have never and will never commit a crime with that gun.....

And what do you get in return...

Criminals do not, by law, have to register illegaly guns...(Haynes v. United States) and even if you register all the guns, criminals do not register their guns, they steal them....no registration required....or get them from straw buyers...again, no registration required by the criminal.......

You claim we can then track guns to the supplier....well...Canada registered long guns....and gave it up with no crimes solved no supply chains stopped...

France....you can't register guns because they are illegal.....and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists and the Paris Terrorists all got illegal, fully automatic rifles in a country without gun stores, gun shows, gun licensing, gun registration or universal background checks.....


So registration is for one purpose only.......to know where the guns are so you can ban or confiscate them at a later date.


If you catch a criminal with a gun....you get them to tell you where they got them....as all the recent gun trafficking arrests have done.....they all involved snitches...and stopped illegal sales...

Which is what you are talking about...and not one legal gun owner had to register their guns to do it......

So your goal was achieved...illegal gun supply chains were closed, and illegal gun sales were stopped preemptively, just like you want....all without registering a single gun....

Red:
We are done for several reasons:

• It's clear you don't understand what "preemptive" means. If you catch a criminal with a gun, you must have, under the current paradigm, also have caught them after they performed a crime other than mere illegal gun possession. That is not preemptive, that is reactive because at the point you catch them, they have already illegally secured possession of a gun by exploiting one or more gaps in the supply chain.
• You have not once identified a direct rebuttal to the efficacy and value of using information (namely the ino in a registry) as a means for law enforcement to act preemptively to deny or reduce access to guns. I suppose because you don't understand temporal nature of the terms "proactive" and "preemptive."
• You consistently identify extreme examples of gun acquisition and use rather than addressing the far more common events, namely a "typical" criminal -- not a terrorist, not a mass murderer -- coming by a gun s/he is not authorized to possess and using it to commit a crime. The extreme cases are not going to go away; that's why they are the extreme. Regardless of how many mass murder or terrorist events occur, they do not collectively account for the bulk of criminal acts that occur with an illegally obtained gun.
• You repeatedly identify what you, perhaps others, see as a hypothetical outcome of a registry -- that it might be used to confiscate all guns, and especially those held by lawful owners -- when the fact is that lawful possession of guns is protected right; thus a registry cannot be used to that end...that is unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.
• You fail to see that "straw buyers" are one of the gaps that would appear as a gap in the supply chain. They would appear by dint of the "straw buyer" having a recurring pattern over time of losing possession of their gun and thus not being able to regularly and consistently show they have possession of the firearms they lawfully purchased.
• You fail to see that while some thefts occur randomly, others occur with a pattern and that a registry will make easily available the details that identify what that pattern is and who (be it specific individuals or a specific class of individuals) are party to that pattern.
• You raise red herring arguments about what happens in Canada and France as though their laws and process of buying, selling and transferring ownership/possession of firearms are applicable to the same processes -- order to cash, procure to pay -- in the U.S. A U.S. gun registry has no intention of resolving similar problems in any country other than the U.S.
• You have not provided a direct answer to a very simple and direct question, one which you singled out and still did not answer directly. You'll recall that it was: Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them? (Of course, as evidenced by your remarks in and preceding the enlarged font text above, you don't understand what it means to be preemptive, I guess that's why you didn't offer a direct reply to the question....)

Registration does not Prempt or Proactively stop criminals from getting guns....we know this because this is not the first time it has been tried or attempted......Germany registered guns in the 1920s and the socialists still used them to kill each other,, and later used those records to confiscate the guns of their political enemies and the Jews.....

And Canada just tried to register 15 million long guns .....and failed miserably, solving no crimes stopping no crimes....

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.

 

[2aguy]

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

Red:
I confused the figure I'd seen from the BJS for total violent victimizations with the figure for gun related violent victimizations. The figure for gun-related crime in 2014 was about 466K. I also miscited the quantity of guns reported lost or stolen. The correct figure for 2014 is ~19K.

Blue:
References please.

It is implausible to me that the 19K guns reported lost or stolen experience an average 24-times-per-gun reuse rate.

Green:
Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

Every single thing you've described pertains to a reactive approach to managing the problem of guns being used illegally. A reactive approach necessarily entails a firearm's being used in the commission of a crime and does nothing to prevent a given crime from being committed with a firearm. A proactive/preemptive approach identifies the ways and means would be illegal gun users obtain guns and takes action to reduce and/or eliminate those ways and means.

One cannot identify the ways and means if one lacks visibility to the supply chain process(s) that allow them to exist; thus the point of registration. If one cannot see where the supply chain gaps are that allow guns to get to people who would use them for criminal purposes, one cannot close those gaps.

Pink:
The police lack the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute a crime. They lack the authority to reduce an admitted/convicted criminal's penalty period. How then can any police work actually work that way?

Orange:
I can't say I'd make failing to register a crime a felony, but I do want to see a significant penalty imposed for not registering and regularly demonstrating possession of one's legally purchased firearms. Something must account for the following fact pattern:

1. all guns "begin life" as legal firearms;
2. some 19K of them are reported as lost or stolen; and
3. some 466K violent crimes occur using firearms.

If you are going to assert that some 19K guns are the ones used in some 466K gun-related crimes, you'll need to show that to be so via empirical evidence that it is so. Common sense tells one that the most likely thing going on is that 400K+ guns go unreported as lost/stolen and those guns are ending up in the hands of people who have no business possessing a gun. Why do so many guns appear to go unreported as lost or stolen? I don't know, but I do know that it's either deliberate that they do, or it's because the lawful owners don't know they lost or had stolen from them their gun(s). Registration makes it possible to identify specifically what individuals/groups are the sources of that aspect of the problem of guns getting to unauthorized holders.

I am not suggesting that registration will identify every single cause for the discrepancy, but it will over time identify patterns and gaps in the supply chain that help to identify what accounts for the discrepancy. Once one knows what accounts for the discrepancy, one can begin to deal with eliminating it.

Brown:
Haynes or no Haynes, individuals who lack the authorization to possess a firearm will not register any firearms they possess. That said, they only way they came to possess the firearms is due to one or more failings in the supply chain processes that are intended to deny them possession of that/those firearms. Those failings, gaps, in the supply chain exist either deliberately or accidentally. The deliberately caused gaps will appear as a pattern; the accidental ones will not. Both gaps can be overcome, albeit via different courses of action taken in response to discovering them.

If one is not going to require registration and recurring demonstration of possession by lawful holders of guns, how do you propose we proactively identify the gaps in the supply chain that allow unlawful holders to gain possession of firearms?

Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them?

I have yet to see a technique that isn't entirely focused on law abiding gun owners who do not commit crimes with guns.....that would essentially make those law abiding gun owners into felons for clerical errors, without them ever using a gun for an act of violence, never commiting a crime with a gun and never harming another human being with a gun....

Yet.....you want to make them felons if they don't register their guns......take their jobs, put them in prison, take their money, take their gun/guns, and make it impossible for them to hold another job.....just because they didn't register their legal product........even though they are not criminals and have never and will never commit a crime with that gun.....

And what do you get in return...

Criminals do not, by law, have to register illegaly guns...(Haynes v. United States) and even if you register all the guns, criminals do not register their guns, they steal them....no registration required....or get them from straw buyers...again, no registration required by the criminal.......

You claim we can then track guns to the supplier....well...Canada registered long guns....and gave it up with no crimes solved no supply chains stopped...

France....you can't register guns because they are illegal.....and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists and the Paris Terrorists all got illegal, fully automatic rifles in a country without gun stores, gun shows, gun licensing, gun registration or universal background checks.....


So registration is for one purpose only.......to know where the guns are so you can ban or confiscate them at a later date.


If you catch a criminal with a gun....you get them to tell you where they got them....as all the recent gun trafficking arrests have done.....they all involved snitches...and stopped illegal sales...

Which is what you are talking about...and not one legal gun owner had to register their guns to do it......

So your goal was achieved...illegal gun supply chains were closed, and illegal gun sales were stopped preemptively, just like you want....all without registering a single gun....

Red:
We are done for several reasons:

• It's clear you don't understand what "preemptive" means. If you catch a criminal with a gun, you must have, under the current paradigm, also have caught them after they performed a crime other than mere illegal gun possession. That is not preemptive, that is reactive because at the point you catch them, they have already illegally secured possession of a gun by exploiting one or more gaps in the supply chain.
• You have not once identified a direct rebuttal to the efficacy and value of using information (namely the ino in a registry) as a means for law enforcement to act preemptively to deny or reduce access to guns. I suppose because you don't understand temporal nature of the terms "proactive" and "preemptive."
• You consistently identify extreme examples of gun acquisition and use rather than addressing the far more common events, namely a "typical" criminal -- not a terrorist, not a mass murderer -- coming by a gun s/he is not authorized to possess and using it to commit a crime. The extreme cases are not going to go away; that's why they are the extreme. Regardless of how many mass murder or terrorist events occur, they do not collectively account for the bulk of criminal acts that occur with an illegally obtained gun.
• You repeatedly identify what you, perhaps others, see as a hypothetical outcome of a registry -- that it might be used to confiscate all guns, and especially those held by lawful owners -- when the fact is that lawful possession of guns is protected right; thus a registry cannot be used to that end...that is unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.
• You fail to see that "straw buyers" are one of the gaps that would appear as a gap in the supply chain. They would appear by dint of the "straw buyer" having a recurring pattern over time of losing possession of their gun and thus not being able to regularly and consistently show they have possession of the firearms they lawfully purchased.
• You fail to see that while some thefts occur randomly, others occur with a pattern and that a registry will make easily available the details that identify what that pattern is and who (be it specific individuals or a specific class of individuals) are party to that pattern.
• You raise red herring arguments about what happens in Canada and France as though their laws and process of buying, selling and transferring ownership/possession of firearms are applicable to the same processes -- order to cash, procure to pay -- in the U.S. A U.S. gun registry has no intention of resolving similar problems in any country other than the U.S.
• You have not provided a direct answer to a very simple and direct question, one which you singled out and still did not answer directly. You'll recall that it was: Do you assert that there is no value to preemptively acting to deny access to guns to individuals who are not entitled to own them? (Of course, as evidenced by your remarks in and preceding the enlarged font text above, you don't understand what it means to be preemptive, I guess that's why you didn't offer a direct reply to the question....)

And more stupidity in registering the guns of people who do not use them to commit crimes....

The bigger lesson of Canada’s experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country

Canada’s suicide rates don’t appear to have been affected by the gun law, either. The overall suicide rate fell by 2% between 1995 and 2009, according to Statistics Canada, but gun deaths only average about 16% of suicides and a decline in gun deaths was almost entirely made up by increases in hangings.

Some police officers also questioned the efficacy of the registry in protecting them on domestic-violence calls, since the registry was riddled with inaccuracies and didn’t say where guns are located, only who owns them. Either way, long guns are only involved in about 18% of female spousal killings in Canada. Knives account for 31%, according to Mauser.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

Cars are not guaranteed to you in the BOR. You do not have the right to own a car. Driving is a privilege.

Y'all just love to compare them to firearms.

A car is nothing but private property so you do have the right to own one and you have the right to operate it on your own property it's the driving on public roads that is not a right

Show me where it specifically states in the Constitution that are you guaranteed the right to own a car and I'll show you where it specifically states you are guaranteed the right to own a firearm.

a car is nothing but private property no different than a piece of land, a dwelling, or a refrigerator

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

 

[2aguy]

Cars are not guaranteed to you in the BOR. You do not have the right to own a car. Driving is a privilege.

Y'all just love to compare them to firearms.

A car is nothing but private property so you do have the right to own one and you have the right to operate it on your own property it's the driving on public roads that is not a right

Show me where it specifically states in the Constitution that are you guaranteed the right to own a car and I'll show you where it specifically states you are guaranteed the right to own a firearm.

a car is nothing but private property no different than a piece of land, a dwelling, or a refrigerator

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

 

[Pogo]

A car is nothing but private property so you do have the right to own one and you have the right to operate it on your own property it's the driving on public roads that is not a right

Show me where it specifically states in the Constitution that are you guaranteed the right to own a car and I'll show you where it specifically states you are guaranteed the right to own a firearm.

a car is nothing but private property no different than a piece of land, a dwelling, or a refrigerator

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

 

[2aguy]

Show me where it specifically states in the Constitution that are you guaranteed the right to own a car and I'll show you where it specifically states you are guaranteed the right to own a firearm.

a car is nothing but private property no different than a piece of land, a dwelling, or a refrigerator

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

These aren't just "Examples" These are actual historical gun control registrations that led to eventual confiscation in those countries and those cities.....we are not talking isolated, individuals confiscating guns...we are talking about entire countries, registering guns and telling gun owners...no..we aren't doing this to take them away, we just want to make people safer, and then years later, they use the gun control registration records to take the guns away.....

 

[Pogo]

a car is nothing but private property no different than a piece of land, a dwelling, or a refrigerator

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

These aren't just "Examples" These are actual historical gun control registrations that led to eventual confiscation in those countries and those cities.....we are not talking isolated, individuals confiscating guns...we are talking about entire countries, registering guns and telling gun owners...no..we aren't doing this to take them away, we just want to make people safer, and then years later, they use the gun control registration records to take the guns away.....

I don't give a flying fuck where they come from -- examples do not make it not a fallacy, period.

I already gave you an example days ago (cars) where that didn't happen at all. So you're wrong.
Deal with it.

 

[2aguy]

None of the things you listed are guaranteed rights in the Constitution.

I've yet to see "the right to keep and bear land, vehicles, dwellings, or refrigerators shall not be infringed" in the Constitution.

You have no Constitutional right to land, a house, a vehicle or a refrigerator.

You do have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of yourself, your family and your country.

Why you choose to argue over this is beyond me and quite silly of you.

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

These aren't just "Examples" These are actual historical gun control registrations that led to eventual confiscation in those countries and those cities.....we are not talking isolated, individuals confiscating guns...we are talking about entire countries, registering guns and telling gun owners...no..we aren't doing this to take them away, we just want to make people safer, and then years later, they use the gun control registration records to take the guns away.....

I don't give a flying fuck where they come from -- examples do not make it not a fallacy, period.

I already gave you an example days ago (cars) where that didn't happen at all. So you're wrong.
Deal with it.

Language .....this is the Clean Debate Zone....I know you left wing gun grabbers don't like actual rules, but we have them in the CDZ....

And they are not simple examples that can be dismissed....they are actual countries that used prior gun registration records to confiscate the guns from their entire population........and we have seen it done here in New York and California.....

 

[Pogo]

Whether a car is guaranteed in the Constitution cannot possibly be more irrelevant here. Actually if anything it makes my point stronger.

The point was, given the attempted Slippery Slope fallacy that "registration is the first step to confiscation", I pointed out that cars have been registered for over a century and yet, far from being "banned", there are about as many of them as there are of us, even after a century of population growth. Which puts the lie to that premise.

Citing the Constitution only turns the knife deeper in that fallacy, since there's nothing in the Constitution preventing the government from banning cars if it wanted to ---- and yet given over a hundred years of registration, the opposite has happened. So y'all are just affirming my point that it IS a fallacy.

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

These aren't just "Examples" These are actual historical gun control registrations that led to eventual confiscation in those countries and those cities.....we are not talking isolated, individuals confiscating guns...we are talking about entire countries, registering guns and telling gun owners...no..we aren't doing this to take them away, we just want to make people safer, and then years later, they use the gun control registration records to take the guns away.....

I don't give a flying fuck where they come from -- examples do not make it not a fallacy, period.

I already gave you an example days ago (cars) where that didn't happen at all. So you're wrong.
Deal with it.

Language .....this is the Clean Debate Zone....I know you left wing gun grabbers don't like actual rules, but we have them in the CDZ....

And they are not simple examples that can be dismissed....they are actual countries that used prior gun registration records to confiscate the guns from their entire population........and we have seen it done here in New York and California.....

It doesn't fucking matter what "we've seen done" --- IT'S A FALLACY. PERIOD. "What we've seen done" is IRRELEVANT to that.

WATCH and LEARN.

Your logical fallacy is: slippery slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Period.

 

[2aguy]

We have recent and historical examples of registration directly leading to eventual confiscation…..recently Britain and Australia, New York and California……..and in the past Germany……which led to the confiscation of guns from political enemies and Jews and expedited the murder of 12 million people…

We are not making this up….registration has actually happened and has led to confiscation……….

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

These aren't just "Examples" These are actual historical gun control registrations that led to eventual confiscation in those countries and those cities.....we are not talking isolated, individuals confiscating guns...we are talking about entire countries, registering guns and telling gun owners...no..we aren't doing this to take them away, we just want to make people safer, and then years later, they use the gun control registration records to take the guns away.....

I don't give a flying fuck where they come from -- examples do not make it not a fallacy, period.

I already gave you an example days ago (cars) where that didn't happen at all. So you're wrong.
Deal with it.

Language .....this is the Clean Debate Zone....I know you left wing gun grabbers don't like actual rules, but we have them in the CDZ....

And they are not simple examples that can be dismissed....they are actual countries that used prior gun registration records to confiscate the guns from their entire population........and we have seen it done here in New York and California.....

It doesn't fucking matter what "we've seen done" --- IT'S A FALLACY. PERIOD. "What we've seen done" is IRRELEVANT to that.

WATCH and LEARN.

Your logical fallacy is: slippery slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Period.

You are wrong. Registration is the first step to confiscation...we have seen it before. You are saying that we can trust the government.......to not confiscate guns in the future...........you are that silly.....

 

[Pogo]

"Examples" do not make a fallacy into "not a fallacy". Period.

These aren't just "Examples" These are actual historical gun control registrations that led to eventual confiscation in those countries and those cities.....we are not talking isolated, individuals confiscating guns...we are talking about entire countries, registering guns and telling gun owners...no..we aren't doing this to take them away, we just want to make people safer, and then years later, they use the gun control registration records to take the guns away.....

I don't give a flying fuck where they come from -- examples do not make it not a fallacy, period.

I already gave you an example days ago (cars) where that didn't happen at all. So you're wrong.
Deal with it.

Language .....this is the Clean Debate Zone....I know you left wing gun grabbers don't like actual rules, but we have them in the CDZ....

And they are not simple examples that can be dismissed....they are actual countries that used prior gun registration records to confiscate the guns from their entire population........and we have seen it done here in New York and California.....

It doesn't fucking matter what "we've seen done" --- IT'S A FALLACY. PERIOD. "What we've seen done" is IRRELEVANT to that.

WATCH and LEARN.

Your logical fallacy is: slippery slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Period.

You are wrong. Registration is the first step to confiscation...we have seen it before. You are saying that we can trust the government.......to not confiscate guns in the future...........you are that silly.....

I didn't even bring up "the government". Now you're doubling down on with a Strawman.


See post 177.
And 175.
And 173.
And 171.

And stop going when you read them.

 

[2aguy]

These aren't just "Examples" These are actual historical gun control registrations that led to eventual confiscation in those countries and those cities.....we are not talking isolated, individuals confiscating guns...we are talking about entire countries, registering guns and telling gun owners...no..we aren't doing this to take them away, we just want to make people safer, and then years later, they use the gun control registration records to take the guns away.....

I don't give a flying fuck where they come from -- examples do not make it not a fallacy, period.

I already gave you an example days ago (cars) where that didn't happen at all. So you're wrong.
Deal with it.

Language .....this is the Clean Debate Zone....I know you left wing gun grabbers don't like actual rules, but we have them in the CDZ....

And they are not simple examples that can be dismissed....they are actual countries that used prior gun registration records to confiscate the guns from their entire population........and we have seen it done here in New York and California.....

It doesn't fucking matter what "we've seen done" --- IT'S A FALLACY. PERIOD. "What we've seen done" is IRRELEVANT to that.

WATCH and LEARN.

Your logical fallacy is: slippery slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Period.

You are wrong. Registration is the first step to confiscation...we have seen it before. You are saying that we can trust the government.......to not confiscate guns in the future...........you are that silly.....

I didn't even bring up "the government". Now you're doubling down on with a Strawman.


See post 177.
And 175.
And 173.
And 171.

And stop going when you read them.

It is hard to read them through my tears of laughter at your dumb posts.......