"Maybe I'm Wrong About Guns"

[Colin norris]

To start any douchbag that says, "I believe in the 2nd Amendment, BUT..."

Good for you. Some stupid idiots there's a god also.

Again, who is grabbing your guns?
No one. It's just a unfounded theory you have about the democrats. Piss off with your rubbish. You're a nut.

 

[2aguy]

REALLLLLY?
God you are stupid?

So in your transaction, who is the law abiding gun owner?

BECAUSE, the value in straw buyers is not their anonymity, it is that they are easily IDed. Meaning the FBI can run its check and come back OK. But registration means I can trace the weapon BACK to that buyer and if he has no ready explanation for why his firearm was used by criminals, no more guns or ammo for that guy. Dry up the pool of straw buyers and that market dries up.

UNLESS, of course, law abiding gun owners are willingly breaking the law. That wouldn't happen, would it?

Are you REALLY as dumb as everything you've ever posted shows?

Registration doesn't do anything....you moron....Canada, Pittsburgh, and D.C.....tried registration and all three were disasters and did nothing to solve cxrimes......besides being a tremendous waste of money and time...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

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


-----

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



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

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

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

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

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way.

Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.

 

[2aguy]

No one lying here but you my Tiny brained Querdeken.

Social norms matter greatly when talking about suicide.

What YOU don't want to talk about is that removing the firearm will, in fact, reduce the number o suicides by simply increasing the failure rates.

Of course, in order to discuss it you'd have to actually understand 3rd grad math so...

I know you are an idiot......but here, let's try again....

Why someone commits suicide does not matter in the discussion of whether guns are making them commit suicide.....Japan limits gun ownership to Yakuza and the police.....yet they still kill themselves at higher rates than we do here....as do about 20 other countries with extreme gun control....

 

[2aguy]

This isn't canada dickbrain.
Try focusing on the Us.
I understand you hate the US but try to stay focused.

Educate yourself:

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1671&context=faculty_scholarship

before you continue making stupid comments and comparisons.

Hitler didn't impose gun registration on Germany, the US did. oopsie!

See what happens when the NRA is not your soul source for information?

This isn't canada dickbrain.

Yes....Canada tried to register just 5 million rifles........and couldn't do it....you idiot.

We have 600 million guns in private hands....over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone.......not to forget all the other rifle types...

You idiot....

I never said Hitler imposed gun registration you half wit....I keep telling asshats like you that morons in the German government in the 1920s, told the Germans that registering guns would make them safer, and reduce crime.......they also said the lists wouldn't get into the wrong hands...

Then, you doofus...the nationals socialists took control, and used the registration lists.....in 1932 going forward, to take guns away from Jews and the political enemies of the nazis...you idiot.....

Canada.....tried to register only 5 million rifles...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

Myth #4:

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


-----

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



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

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

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

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

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.

 

[2aguy]

And your point is?

People go to VA from NY to buy guns for resale. 1 crime
People in VA sell those guns KNOWING they'll be carried back to NY. 2 crimes
People then smuggle those firearms back to NY. 3 crimes
People then sell those guns to a willing buyer several crimes

Background checks and registration would eliminate this path for firearm acquisition.

As long as people can move freely from state to state than no state law will be effective.
Federal regulation is necessary.

Moron...the people buying those guns are straw buyers who can pass any background check.......you idiot......gun registration wouldn't stop them because they wouldn't register the guns that they plan on selling to criminals...you idiot.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, who is grabbing your guns?
No one.

^^^^
This is a lie, as I provided an example.

 

[Plow Boy]

Hardly ‘amazing’ – it’s more of the same ignorance and idiotic sophistry:

Hasty generalization fallacies

Post hoc fallacies

Confirmation bias fallacies

False comparison fallacies

What’s remarkable about the gun ‘debate’ is that both sides are equally wrong.

More firearm regulatory measures isn’t the solution.

No one is trying to ‘ban’ guns or ‘confiscate’ guns.

You’re a liar or either a dupe. There is an entire party that wants to ban guns. The Democrats would love to ban all of them.

 

[2aguy]

Good for you. Some stupid idiots there's a god also.

Again, who is grabbing your guns?
No one. It's just a unfounded theory you have about the democrats. Piss off with your rubbish. You're a nut.

These states...

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources

Dr. John Lott has a new op-ed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Democrats push for more gun control in Pennsylvania. It gives you an idea what they would do if Democrats took control of the Penns…

crimeresearch.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hardly ‘amazing’ – it’s more of the same ignorance and idiotic sophistry:

You are a proven liar; as such your meaningless opinions are... meaningless.

No one is trying to ‘ban’ guns or ‘confiscate’ guns.

Another lie.

 

[Colin norris]

These states...

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources

Dr. John Lott has a new op-ed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Democrats push for more gun control in Pennsylvania. It gives you an idea what they would do if Democrats took control of the Penns…

crimeresearch.org

"Many" are concerned. That's a reliable source.
I'll tell you what us entirely unjustified.
Every time guns are mentioned you all savage the gun shops to buy more guns and ammunition as if theres a civil war started.
Tell me how you justify that?
You're a paranoid about your filthy guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every time guns are mentioned you all savage the gun shops to buy more guns and ammunition as if theres a civil war started.

Unsurprisingly, you have the facts wrong.
Every time there's a mass shooting and a Democrat, bathed in the blood and standing on tbe bodies of the innocent, gets on TV and starts demenading that we ban guns, we take them at their word and go out and buy more guns and ammo.
Why shouldn't we?

You're a paranoid about your filthy guns.

Paranoid?
If you understood the meaning of the term, you'd recognize that when the other side tells you they are going to do what you think they are going to do, acting as of they will go through with it does not qualify.

 

[Dadoalex]

I don't have to - federal law does it for me.
Section 101.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiCuLPW_J3zAhVGCM0KHfliDLUQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fcontent%2Fpkg%2FSTATUTE-82%2Fpdf%2FSTATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ClSkfiOqZ291ypRsSlSCH

I don't know if you failed to read your link or expected me to.
In either case, your link contains nothing about all the uses for a firearm beyond killing.

 

[Dadoalex]

True'
You could simply be ignorant of the fact your statements are false.
So, are you ignorant, or did you lie?

I'm speaking to the ignorant.
Not surprising they refuse to see the truth before their eyes.

 

[Dadoalex]

That is it illegal to do what she(he)? suggest can be doen to avoid state laws
Making it illegal, and then more illegal, does not prevent it, as proven by the fact people are willing to commit felonies in the initial process.

They do it now.
Making it harder for them to do it will reduce the number of guns they move this way.
Also makes it easier to ID the sellers and buyers.
There is little risk in the criminal side of guns thanks to you and yours.
Increasing that risk and the penalties will cause many to simply get out of the business.
Nothing like a short visit from BATF and the threat of 10 years in a fed lockup to cause one to reconsider the $200 he'll make on that gun.

BUUUUUT
Since you bring it up, should we do away with...
Murder laws, murders still happen
Rape laws
All drug laws
Laws against any theft???????

Your reasoning is silly.

 

[Dadoalex]

Ah. You know you cannot meaningfully address what I asid, so you have to make up someting I didn't say and attack that.
I accept your surrender.

I did.
All the laws cannot stop al criminals from obtaining firearms.
So, in your argument, since they won't worn anyway, do away with those laws.
And criminals should be allowed free access to firearms.

Your reasoning and your attempt at escape just got you bitchslapped with your own "logic."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Dadoalex]

^^^^
You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true, and thus, you have, again, lied.

Jesus Fuckin Christ you fucking liar.

YOU posted right up there a link to a federal regulation on guns.
My GOD you are an idiot liar.

 

[Dadoalex]

^^^
This is a lie.

And still as irrelevant as ever.

 

[Dadoalex]

Ah. You cannot read. Explains much.

I said:
The same right violated by you bring stopped, w/o reasonable suspicion or probable cause, from walking down the street by a police officer, who then restrains you while he checks to see if you have any outstanding warrants. If you do not, you may continue walking down the street.

The right violated, above? That's the right violated by background checks.

GOD you are dumb.
The office makes the probable cause determination.
Ever heard of "pretextual stops?"
What do the courts say about pretextual stops?

BUUUUUUUUUUT
If you want the cops to go all LA's finest on you, be my guest.
Tell the cop he doesn't have cause and walk away.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

NOW as for background checks....
You want a gun? A gun used thousands upon thousands of times each and every year to kill innocent people?
A device whose only function is to kill people?
THAT my Tiny Brained Querdeken IS probable cause.
AND
If you object to the background check
Don't buy the gun.
YOUR choice and none of your rights are violated.

 

[Dadoalex]

There are two, that outrank all of yours combined.

1. I have the right.

2. Self-defence.

Nuff said.

The argument is over all the uses for a firearm.
The suggestion made was to list all the uses.
YOU FAILED.

 

[Dadoalex]

This is why we do not. Any other discussion by you is extraneous.

Guns are made and sold across state lines.
SORRY
Your failure to understand the Constitution is the source of the problem.