Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seaward wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

My wife got a got a gun and started carrying several years ago when I was deployed and she was getting stalked at work by a guy who ultimately ended up following her home on more than one occasion, after the police said they couldn't do anything until he actually committed a crime.
...

In the UK stalking is a crime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
So earlier a policeman was shot by a thug with a pistol that was stolen... FROM THE POLICE about two or three years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3389974/Philadelphia-police-Officer-shot-police-cruiser.html

So first off, a statement from the new Mayor.

Jim Kenney, in his first week as mayor of the nation's fifth-largest city, said, 'There are just too many guns on the streets, and I think our national government needs to do something about that.'

His statement comes on the heels of President Barack Obama's announcement Tuesday of his plan to tighten gun control laws.

The Fed should do "something". Gotcha.

At a press conference today it was revealed the gunman, who has a criminal record, used a police handgun reported stolen in 2013.

... ...

Presumably it was identified as a stolen police gun thanks to a national database of police gun serial numbers. This of course shows that a national database of gun serial numbers would be of no use in crime investigation.

It was IDed as a stolen police gun because the cops reported it stolen. And as gov't owned property paid for by the tax payers they ned to keep accountability and therefore need to know what they have on hand.

That is no justification at all for a registry of privately owned guns.

What would be the pros and cons of a federal registry of privately owned guns?

No real Pros that I can think of. Criminals won't register their guns. And stolen weapons don't magically get found because they were on a registry. Cons are that the government knows you own weapons and can use that knowledge against you.

The other con is it costs money to create and maintain something as massive as a federal registry of all privately owned weapons, and as has been pointed out, that registry does little good towards preventing a fething thing. Therefore it is a big waste of resources even if it wasn't unconstitutional.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Criminals won't register their guns.

You're assuming that no one ever does anything criminal with a legally owned gun.

That is such an incredibly small portion of crimes committed that it can be ignored.

More likely I think things like insurance rates would go up for gun-owners; which dog, trampoline, and smokers already know all too well.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is such an incredibly small portion of crimes committed that it can be ignored.

Do you have a source on that claim?

 Minx wrote:
What would be the pros and cons of a federal registry of privately owned guns?

Pros (that people pretend don't exist):

- Tracking the movement of guns. If guns are registered and tracked at the time of manufacture, and each subsequent sale, you can identify patters when guns end up being used in crimes. Are certain stores selling a large percentage of weapons that are used in crimes? Are certain buyers engaged in straw purchases?
- Enforcement of laws requiring private sellers to run background checks. If guns are registered at the same time as the background check, you verify that the check was conducted.

Do the pros outweigh the perceived cons of a database? That's a legitimate question. But we should admit that there are potential benefits and argue about their effectiveness instead of pretending that they don't exist at all.

 CptJake wrote:
It was IDed as a stolen police gun because the cops reported it stolen. And as gov't owned property paid for by the tax payers they ned to keep accountability and therefore need to know what they have on hand.

That is no justification at all for a registry of privately owned guns.

No, however the ability to ID a stolen or illegally transferred civilian gun would have utility.

There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.

The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.

 Breotan wrote:
There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.

The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.

Like that stunt the newspaper did by publishing the list of owners addresses?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

 d-usa wrote:

 Minx wrote:
What would be the pros and cons of a federal registry of privately owned guns?

Pros (that people pretend don't exist):

- Tracking the movement of guns. If guns are registered and tracked at the time of manufacture, and each subsequent sale, you can identify patters when guns end up being used in crimes. Are certain stores selling a large percentage of weapons that are used in crimes? Are certain buyers engaged in straw purchases?
- Enforcement of laws requiring private sellers to run background checks. If guns are registered at the same time as the background check, you verify that the check was conducted.

Do the pros outweigh the perceived cons of a database? That's a legitimate question. But we should admit that there are potential benefits and argue about their effectiveness instead of pretending that they don't exist at all.

Registration would require voluntary participation to create a complete and accurate registry of the 300,000,000+ unregistered guns currently privately owned. Good luck with that. It is an unenforceable law. The government doesn't know who own which guns currently so how would they know if every one got registered? Would agents check every residence in the country? How does the Federal government have jurisdiction to demand that private property gets registered? The interstate commerce clause doesn't cover the passive act of ownership after a commercial transaction.

How does informing the federal government that I own guns and specifically which guns do anything to make anyone safer or more law abiding? If someone passes the background check they've proven themselves trustworthy enough to own firearms so at that point who cares which guns and how many he/she owns?

Every dealer must have an FFL because buying and selling guns is subject to federal regulations because its interstate commerce. Everyone with an FFL is required to have buyers fill out a 4473 form and undergo a NICS check. FFLs must run NICS checks on buyers regardless of where the sale takes place. The BATFE regulates FFLs and can do spot checks of their business records anytime and revoke the FFL and file charges if laws and regulations aren't being followed. Any dealer that wants to avoid a federal prosecution runs background checks on every buyer.

A gun registry does nothing to prevent criminal activity. It is an unwarranted government intrusion whose sole purpose is to enable greater control over the populace.

Relapse, agreed. Even if your firearm is recovered after being stolen, it's fairly common knowledge that PDs hardly ever return property.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
It was IDed as a stolen police gun because the cops reported it stolen. And as gov't owned property paid for by the tax payers they ned to keep accountability and therefore need to know what they have on hand.

That is no justification at all for a registry of privately owned guns.

No, however the ability to ID a stolen or illegally transferred civilian gun would have utility.

How so? Citizens are allowed to sell privately owned guns and they're not required to run background checks and don't have access to NICS so what's the point of tracing previous ownership?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That is such an incredibly small portion of crimes committed that it can be ignored.

Do you have a source on that claim?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

 Breotan wrote:
The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.

To be fair, the government already has at least half a dozen such lists for other things that all do those same things (or so the conspiracy nuts and anti-government crowd tells us), so what's one more?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.

Why would you jeopardize whatever point you wish to make by sacrificing your credibility from the get go by using a cherry picked quote that ignores vital context?

 d-usa wrote:
Pros (that people pretend don't exist):

Is that like the gun show loophole that people pretend exists?

 Minx wrote:
What would be the pros and cons of a federal registry of privately owned guns?

What business is it of the government what firearm(s) a person may own?

 Breotan wrote:
There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.

The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections".

This is exactly what happened in CA with the "Assault Weapons" ban.

My father owned a couple of weapons that fell under the ban, and did the good citizen thing and registered them. However, he soon sold them because he wanted off the list. Well, he could never get off the list, even a decade after selling the weapons, despite multiple phone calls, certified letters with proof of sale to the CA DOJ, etc, and every year he'd get letters from the CA DOJ, as the owner of a "dangerous assault weapon", reminding of his "responsibilities" as such an owner and the consequences if they weren't kept up on, and other such things, up until he moved out of CA, even with the weapons having been sold out of state many years before.

That experience, and the CA SKS rifle debacle, proved very firmly to me that gun registries are absolutely a terrible idea.

No, however the ability to ID a stolen or illegally transferred civilian gun would have utility.

And where, between 4473s and serial numbers on the firearms themselves, does the current state of things NOT allow us to do this?

so what's one more?

To me that means we should probably be knocking down a few registries rather than heaping yet more on the flame.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.

Why would you jeopardize whatever point you wish to make by sacrificing your credibility from the get go by using a cherry picked quote that ignores vital context?

Because it's the same argument that's often seen coming from the opposite side in gun debates, but then it's bad because reasons.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, it wouldn't help in all cases. But just because something doesn't work all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

I'm going to save this quote for the next gun control thread.

Why would you jeopardize whatever point you wish to make by sacrificing your credibility from the get go by using a cherry picked quote that ignores vital context?

Because it's the same argument that's often seen coming from the opposite side in gun debates, but then it's bad because reasons.

As long as you are happy that you are deliberately using dishonest means to make your point then who am I to disagree with your decision. That does not mean I will not point out your dishonesty later of course.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Pros (that people pretend don't exist):

Is that like the gun show loophole that people pretend exists?

You know what... if I win the powerball tonight, Imma open up a gun store called "Loopholes"...

Or, maybe "Trigger Warnings: Loopholes"?

 whembly wrote:
You know what... if I win the powerball tonight, Imma open up a gun store called "Loopholes"...

Or, maybe "Trigger Warnings: Loopholes"?

I think a gun store called Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms would be awesome You have a bar, smoking area, and range all under one roof (no shooting if you are under the influence)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You know what... if I win the powerball tonight, Imma open up a gun store called "Loopholes"...

Or, maybe "Trigger Warnings: Loopholes"?

I think a gun store called Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms would be awesome You have a bar, smoking area, and range all under one roof (no shooting if you are under the influence)

Heck, if you won the jackpot in the powerball, you sure as gak wouldn't care about the cost of insurance for such a place

Open up a gun store called "Loopholes" and set up a table at local gun shows.

People really like to focus of big words and big hands from politicians. I guess it makes them feel warm inside they are doing something than nothing. Heh, after all, if you don't do something in office, no one will remember what you did - guess infamy is just another route in this day and age - as long as you schmooze people like Obama.

Anyway, gun violence.... that's laughable in the US when we do resort to statisitics. Going off of violent crime offenses from the FBI stats, you will find that most mass shooting for example represent probably a less than .2% (that's point two percent) chance of that happening... if you happened to have a violent crime happen to you. That's very very very very low - rare. Furthermore, the hidden statistics too, reveal that much of gun related crime will point to gang violence.

Also, how would making it harder for everyone to get guns really spin a positive side to prevent overall violent crime? It doesn't! It reduces the good/law abiding citizens' chance of staving off an attack. If anything, one should ask, the statistic of what happen when you restrict guns; I'll just point to gun free zones. I personally would rather carry a pistol, than a knife in any potentially lethal altercation. If you don't ok - then don't; its your freedom - no matter how unwise I may think it is for you to do.

Furthermore, the second amendment is far beyond just personal protection, but an assurance to stand against tyranny. This is represented in the matter of 'militia' which the amendment makes clear - the correlation of your individual right and civic duty/right, that every citizen is apart of the militia. As such, the template regarding armaments infers an equal level access that you would expect on a 'rifleman'. This means automatic weapons, pistols etc. but as far as ordinance, cannons and such, would/should be a matter of state/county regulation.

And one more thing, if you want trust bureaucrats enforcing and maintaining rights with encroaching qualifications, then they better be perfect people, because history tells me that absolute power absolutely corrupts. People are inherently evil/flawed, not inherently good.

 Breotan wrote:
There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.

The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.

1. Data Protection Act.
2. Presumably people insure their guns, and the insurance company has a list of your serial numbers in order to verify you actually own them. Like your car insurance company having the licence plate number of your car.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
There is only one "Pro" about a national registry. By checking serial numbers, it would allow stolen/missing guns to quickly be identified and a police investigation begun to trace it's history back to the lawful owner.

The "Cons" include a government database with your name on it that anyone, like insurance companies, can get ahold of. No guarantee that your name comes off that list should you sell your firearms (administrative error). Local municipalities could use the list to identify gun owners and harass them with compliance "inspections". Prospective employers could use the list to screen out applicants who own guns. Advertisers and "non-profits" could target people on the list for spam/activist related mailings. An anti-gun neighbor could use the information to "out" or "shame" gun owners in the neighborhood the same way they do for pedophiles on those registries. The list goes on.

1. Data Protection Act.
2. Presumably people insure their guns, and the insurance company has a list of your serial numbers in order to verify you actually own them. Like your car insurance company having the licence plate number of your car.

Yep, where I live, people wouldn't accept this as law. As a matter of fact I reckon our state govt would arrest a fed enforcing this.

Bureaucrats can write whatever laws about guns; the bullets will point out their errors eventually.

Anyone willing to make these national restrictions fail to see the same measure/principle can equally be thrown back at them. ( Consider Trump)