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.

That actually sounds like an interesting idea for a movie XD Unfortunately it seems the film has never been released on any home media.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.

The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place.

Why should I be held responsible for a crime I didn't commit?

If I sell knives, should I be held responsible if a dude buys one of my knives and murders someone with it? Of course not. Why should it be true for guns? Or indeed any other potentially harmful object.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.

The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place.

Why should I be held responsible for a crime I didn't commit?

If I sell knives, should I be held responsible if a dude buys one of my knives and murders someone with it? Of course not. Why should it be true for guns? Or indeed any other potentially harmful object.

By Smacks "logic" bartenders should be forced to pay the same DUI fine as a drunk driver... Or, perhaps it's the auto dealership who sold the car's responsibility?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.

The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place.

Why should I be held responsible for a crime I didn't commit?

If I sell knives, should I be held responsible if a dude buys one of my knives and murders someone with it? Of course not. Why should it be true for guns? Or indeed any other potentially harmful object.

By Smacks "logic" bartenders should be forced to pay the same DUI fine as a drunk driver... Or, perhaps it's the auto dealership who sold the car's responsibility?

It would be both of course.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why should I be held responsible for a crime I didn't commit?

Lots of people are responsible for crimes they don't personally commit. If I pay someone to kill my wife, saying "waaah why am I responsible" wouldn't get me very far. If you sell a knife to a child and something terrible happens, would you also claim you weren't responsible?

If you don't want to be responsible for what other people do with the gun, then all you have to do is send the form back and say that you aren't responsible for the gun any more, and provide the name of the person who is. Then it's not your problem any more.

 Smacks wrote:
If I pay someone to kill my wife, saying "waaah why am I responsible" wouldn't get me very far.

That's true, but it's true because you've engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

If I sell someone my old weedwhacker and they use it to kill their neighbor, I'm not liable unless they told me, at or before the time of sale, "I'm going to use this weedwhacker I'm buying from you to kill my neighbor."

Selling someone a gun is not a de facto participation in a criminal conspiracy.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
By Smacks "logic" bartenders should be forced to pay the same DUI fine as a drunk driver... Or, perhaps it's the auto dealership who sold the car's responsibility?

That's funny, I posted something similar in a thread a few days ago...

It can be frustrating when you try to suggest a different angle on something, and you just get a load of condescending rhetoric back, often from people who didn't fully grasp (or perhaps even read) what you said, they just paint you as "the other side". An awful lot of "rebuttals" on here seem to follow the pattern of: "By your logic, [insert strawman], [insert ridiculous conclusion], [insert thinly veiled insult]", which tends to break down any structured debate.

Well done for not understanding my post, while also being a sad predictable cliché.

Seaward wrote:
If I sell someone my old weedwhacker and they use it to kill their neighbor, I'm not liable unless they told me, at or before the time of sale, "I'm going to use this weedwhacker I'm buying from you to kill my neighbor."

Selling someone a gun is not a de facto participation in a criminal conspiracy.

The crime is not selling the gun, the crime is failing to notify the registry.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I sell knives, should I be held responsible if a dude buys one of my knives and murders someone with it? Of course not. Why should it be true for guns? Or indeed any other potentially harmful object.

Your argument hinges on conflating all "harmful objects". Would you also argue that nuclear warheads shouldn't be tracked? Hopefully not, because they are completely different to knives a weedwackers. A gun is not a knife, it is its own thing with its own unique talking points. Saying it is a knife, or the same as a knife is a fallacy.

If you really think they are the same, then just use knives for self defence and stop complaining about gun control. Problem solved.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given the registries that exist already for certain items and in certain places (e.g. assault weapons in CA & NY, NFA items on a Federal Level), I would posit that they couldn't follow a chain as complex as yours even *with* the registry.

The point is, they wouldn't need to. If the people involved were criminally liable for for the gun then the chain would be unlikely to get so complex in the first place. Tim and Sue and Kim, should have been aware that there was an issue with the gun when she moved to Europe. Had they reported it lost/stolen then it would probably have been recovered.

Where is the basis for the expectation of recovery from? Guns *are* frequently reported stolen, but only ever rarely recovered, (and even more rarely are they recovered quickly).

Or if ownership were transferred to Jason, then Tony it should also have reported it lost/stolen

It sounds like it would be abandoned, not lost or stolen in this case. If he got evicted and didn't retrieve a firearm, it would appear he didn't care to, and if Larry just kept it, then you'd think he'd already have incentive to report it stolen between wanting it back and wanting to get back at the landlord,

Larry is a shady character, but he isn't stupid enough to give a gun with his name on it to a fethup like Rizzo.

Larry was dumb enough to rent to Tony and then to take an abandoned/stolen handgun already, how much faith are we putting in this guy?

And if he did, he would have reported it stolen right away when it went missing.

Which he can do now, I mean, it's still possible the that the gun could be traced to him and have incentive to report it. Especially if he wanted to distance himself from the guy he gave it to.

Police would have then been able to speak to Rizzo

Speak with or have probably cause to search and actually recover the firearm?

EDIT: Also I might posit that the chain isn't that complex. How long does a gun last? Maybe 100 years? It could easily change hands ~10 times over a century, that might not be unusual.

Entirely true,however, existing systems have proven repeatedly incapable of adequately tracking such things. To reference an earlier post of mine, my father had to register guns for the CA assault weapon ban, he did, but even more than a decade after selling them he could never get off the list (and thus the list never knew the guns had properly changed hands). The ATF has been somewhat notorious in its poor NFA record keeping. No existing system has proven successful at any such tracking.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Where is the basis for the expectation of recovery from? Guns *are* frequently reported stolen, but only ever rarely recovered, (and even more rarely are they recovered quickly).

In both cases (Kim vs Jason, and Tony vs Larry). The gun would have been easy to recover because everyone knew where it was. In my story the owners don't make a fuss over the gun because they are on bad terms with the person who has it. Kim is away in Europe, Tony owes Larry money etc... So they just shrug and cut their losses. If it was actually registered to them, and they could be penalized for not taking care of it properly, then they might have been more responsible, and keen to disassociate themselves from it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Police would have then been able to speak to Rizzo

Speak with or have probable cause to search and actually recover the firearm?

Well Rizzo stole the gun in the more traditional sense. If Tony or Larry reported the gun missing then it would lead straight to him, and then I guess the police would have probable cause (that would be true regardless of the registry). The trick is encouraging people to report when a gun is no longer in their possession, by making it about more than just the price of a gun.

It's like driving without insurance, it's not just about the money, you can actually lose your licence and stuff. It encourages the vast majority of people keep their insurance up to date.

EDIT: Also I might posit that the chain isn't that complex. How long does a gun last? Maybe 100 years? It could easily change hands ~10 times over a century, that might not be unusual.

Entirely true,however, existing systems have proven repeatedly incapable of adequately tracking such things. To reference an earlier post of mine, my father had to register guns for the CA assault weapon ban, he did, but even more than a decade after selling them he could never get off the list (and thus the list never knew the guns had properly changed hands). The ATF has been somewhat notorious in its poor NFA record keeping. No existing system has proven successful at any such tracking.

Well that is indeed unfortunate and annoying. Of course a system that is implemented poorly, and doesn't function how it is supposed to, is not something I support. OTOH the vehicle registration system in the UK works very well, and can be used to identify drivers who are not insured and such. Much more impressive organisational systems have been implanted for businesses and logistics, so I don't think implementation is a serious argument against it, though I agree it's a legitimate concern.

 Smacks wrote:

Seaward wrote:
If I sell someone my old weedwhacker and they use it to kill their neighbor, I'm not liable unless they told me, at or before the time of sale, "I'm going to use this weedwhacker I'm buying from you to kill my neighbor."

Selling someone a gun is not a de facto participation in a criminal conspiracy.

The crime is not selling the gun, the crime is failing to notify the registry.

There is no registry, and the argument you just made is one of many reasons there never will be one.

Seaward wrote:

The crime is not selling the gun, the crime is failing to notify the registry.

There is no registry

You replied to me, and I was talking about how a hypothetical registry would work. Please try to pay attention.

the argument you just made is one of many reasons there never will be one.

You mean the argument that registering weapons will help to prevent straw purchasing, detect black market sellers, and encourage people to report when someone else (of unknown character) might be using their firearm? They are all good reasons to support a registry, and would have virtually no impact on law abiding gun owners.

What are the arguments against? "Smacks is a stupid, and 'ridiculous DUI analogy' again", "guns are basically knives, except in situations where I don't want to use knives, then they are guns", That's all pretty damning stuff I agree.

The reason there would likely never be a registry (if that really is the case), is because there is a certain portion of society that will oppose any and all legislation on guns because they are paranoid that it is a slippery slope towards their guns being taken away. Even if that means blocking legislation that would save lives, and doesn't actually inconvenience them at all.

You mean the argument that registering weapons will help to prevent straw purchasing, detect black market sellers, and encourage people to report when someone else (of unknown character) might be using their firearm? They are all good reason to support a registry, and would have virtually no impact on law abiding gun owners.

Which is totally why Canada scrapped theirs. And why the shining beacon of California is so effective at the above. (HA!)

The only people these foolish attempts effect ARE the people trying to follow the rules.

The reason there would likely never be a registry (if that really is the case), is because there is a certain portion of society that will oppose any and all legislation on guns because they are paranoid that it is a slippery slope towards their guns being taken away.

I can only hope. It's not like the pro-control side of the country hasn't stuffed their foot in their mouth enough times to give that idea some credence.

 Smacks wrote:
You replied to me, and I was talking about how a hypothetical registry would work. Please try to pay attention.

Yes, and I'm explaining why it wouldn't work, and why it wouldn't be enacted in the first place.

You mean the argument that registering weapons will help to prevent straw purchasing, detect black market sellers, and encourage people to report when someone else (of unknown character) might be using their firearm? They are all good reason to support a registry, and would have virtually no impact on law abiding gun owners.

The reason there would likely never be a registry (if that really is the case), is because there is a certain portion of society that will oppose any and all legislation on guns because they are paranoid that it is a slippery slope towards their guns being taken away. Even if that means blocking legislation that would save lives, and doesn't actually inconvenience them at all.

The main reasons there would never be a registry are that there is no support for one, and that there is already a law in place banning the establishment of one. Another really good reason is due to the inevitable overreach that would occur with one in place. California's a great example.

As far as blocking legislation that "would save lives" or "not inconvenience them at all" goes...people say this, and have yet to name one such law. Nor do those people seem to have much experience with American bureaucracy even when it's not being deliberately malicious. If it's anything like registering a car, there's going to be plenty of inconvenience.

And certain states and localities would make sure to be incredibly malicious with a law like you're proposing. I, for example, live in a "shall issue" concealed carry permit state, meaning cities and counties within the state, by law, have to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who applies for one and is qualified. I live in a very liberal city within the state. This city ensures it makes it as annoying and time-consuming as possible to get through the red tape. The clerk's office only accepts the applications at limited, inconvenient hours. The police only do the required fingerprinting at limited, inconvenient hours. State law requires that they send the permit within 90 days of receiving the application; I do not know anyone in the area who has a permit, myself included, who did not have their actual license issued around the 10th day but not postmarked until the 90th.

My city is legally obligated to issue CCW permits to qualified individuals when they apply, yet manages to make it clear that if such a law didn't exist, they'd never issue a single one. I shudder to imagine how much time I would have to spend in an even worse version of the DMV if a gun registry went into effect in this town.

Seaward wrote:
The main reasons there would never be a registry are that there is no support for one

From what I can see, about half of Americans do actually support some form of gun control, and most of the opposition to gun control is that legislation won't target criminals. Having a registry that keeps track of weapons, and thus helps to prevent them drifting onto the black market, seems like a good compromise. It's one of those things that I was actually shocked you didn't already have. It's no wonder you guys have problems with gun violence, you don't seem to want to take any precautions at all.

My city is legally obligated to issue CCW permits to qualified individuals when they apply, yet manages to make it clear that if such a law didn't exist, they'd never issue a single one. I shudder to imagine how much time I would have to spend in an even worse version of the DMV if a gun registry went into effect in this town.

Since you already have the background checks when you buy a gun, I don't see why it would even come up unless you sold the gun. It's not like you need to keep renewing it. If you sold the gun then the only thing you'd need to do is post the forms back. Or it could even be done online.

I agree that bureaucracies might be the fatally weak link in actually implementing it, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently bad idea in theory.

 SOFDC wrote:
Which is totally why Canada scrapped theirs.

Canada had some problems with poor implementation and cost overruns, but the reason Canada scrapped it was because the conservatives always wanted to scrap it from day 1, and they finally got their way. It doesn't really say anything about the effectiveness of a working system. A CAFC survey found that 74% of general duty police officers found it beneficial. Also you have to remember that Canada has a big problem with guns being smuggled in from the US, so it's a bit unfair to dig at their system for failing, when sharing a border with your system contributed to their problems.

 Smacks wrote:
From what I can see, about half of Americans do actually support some form of gun control, and most of the opposition to gun control is that legislation won't target criminals.

That's an incredibly broad claim to make without providing any support for it at all.

Having a registry that keeps track of weapons, and thus helps to prevent them drifting onto the black market seems like a good compromise. It's one of those things that I was actually shocked you didn't already have. It's no wonder you guys have problems with gun violence, you don't seem to want to take any precautions at all.

We take plenty of precautions, which is probably why gun violence is on the decline.

I agree that bureaucracies with be the fatally weak link in actually implementing it, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently bad idea in theory.

Isn't that the argument I always hear in favor of communism? The theory isn't the problem, it's the implementation?

How about we deal with how such laws would actually be used rather than how they theoretically might play out in a perfect world? Hell, there's nothing theoretically wrong with "may issue" permit laws compared to "shall issue" ones, but in reality "may issue" means "won't issue."

Seaward wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
From what I can see, about half of Americans do actually support some form of gun control, and most of the opposition to gun control is that legislation won't target criminals.

That's an incredibly broad claim to make without providing any support for it at all.

You mean ~half of Americans supporting some form of gun control? That is fairly common knowledge, I didn't think a source was required, but one won't be hard to find. Most opinion polls I have seen look something like this, (which is just the first one I found, I didn't cherry pick it). As for opposition to gun control being about legislation not targeting criminals. It's a commonly spouted argument, it has come up repeatedly in every gun control topic, and has even been used within the last few posts I.e. "The only people these foolish attempts effect ARE the people trying to follow the rules."

We take plenty of precautions

Relative to other developed countries, you don't., you are probably the most liberal about guns.

which is probably why gun violence is on the decline.

Well now who is making broad claims without providing any support for it at all? Crime has been on the decline in Europe too, might be more to do with a shifting population.

I agree that bureaucracies with be the fatally weak link in actually implementing it, but that doesn't mean it is an inherently bad idea in theory.

Isn't that the argument I always hear in favor of communism? The theory isn't the problem, it's the implementation?

How about we deal with how such laws would actually be used rather than how they theoretically might play out in a perfect world? Hell, there's nothing theoretically wrong with "may issue" permit laws compared to "shall issue" ones, but in reality "may issue" means "won't issue."

Claiming that something might not be implemented properly, can be used to shoot down any idea. We wouldn't have a civilization at all if people just refused to try anything on the basis that we're probably too incompetent. It isn't only possible in a "perfect world". It's very possible in this one. Most voter registration systems have a similar level of complexity and they run all the time all over the world. Hell, from what I hear the NRA already have a pretty banging database of people who own guns.

 Smacks wrote:
[You mean ~half of Americans supporting some form of gun control?

That half of all Americans support gun control, and that opposition to gun control is largely based on the notion that proposals don't target criminals.

That is fairly common knowledge, I didn't think a source was required, but one won't be hard to find. Most opinion polls I have seen look something like this, (which is just the first one I found, I didn't cherry pick it). As for opposition to gun control being about legislation not targeting criminals. It's a commonly spouted argument, it has come up repeatedly in every gun control topic, and has even been used within the last few posts I.e. "The only people these foolish attempts effect ARE the people trying to follow the rules."

A lot of self-selection biased polls will look like that, yes. What's relevant is that the devil is in the details - for instance, you wouldn't use that poll to prove that people support background checks (a form of gun control), because the percentage of people who do is actually much higher. You also wouldn't use it to demonstrate that people support banning handguns (another form of gun control), because the percentage of people who want to do that is much lower. Claiming that half of Americans support gun control, therefore there would be support for a national gun registry? No good. No evidence.

Well now who is making broad claims without providing any support for it at all? Crime has been on the decline in Europe too, might be more to do with a shifting population.

To use something someone recently said...the fact that gun violence is massively down in the US is fairly common knowledge. I didn't think a source was required, but one won't be hard to find. Most gun violence articles I have seen look something like this.

Claiming that something might not be implemented properly, can be used to shoot down any idea. We wouldn't have a civilization at all if people just refused to try anything on the basis that we're probably too incompetent. It isn't only possible in a "perfect world". It's very possible in this one. Most voter registration systems have a similar level of complexity and they run all the time all over the world. Hell, from what I hear the NRA already had a pretty banging database of people who have guns.

But we're not claiming that something might not be implemented properly. We're saying it will be, because there's ample evidence that this is true in anti-gun localities. Also, I'm not sure if you were intending to be ironic in bringing up voter registration as an example of well-implemented government bureaucracy that has never been used to strip individuals of their rights, but if not...wow.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Why would you need a national registry to 'make it an offense to not report a theft or transfer'?

How does the existence of this registry prevent the straw purchaser from claiming the weapon was stolen or sold privately? Are you intending to couple this registry with universal background checks? That may stop the 'sold privately' portion, but not the 'it was stolen' portion' (which would probably go way up).

I'm honestly having trouble understanding how a national registry does anything you say it would, let alone actually prevent a single act of 'gun violence' from happening.

Again, the question is, how does a national registry enable what you are after?

You can levy a reporting requirement just fine without one.

A weapon ends up in the hands of a criminal every time a weapon is stolen due to the fact that stealing is a crime. There are already reporting laws in the books and the authorities have been successfully tracing lost and stolen guns for several decades thanks to the fact that all guns have serial numbers and all shipments from manufacturers and all sales by dealers are recorded. Are you under the impression that police can't trace guns because there's no national registry?

If you look at my other posts in this topic you would see I state a few times 'police already trace guns used in crimes'.

Seaward wrote:
A lot of self-selection biased polls will look like that, yes. What's relevant is that the devil is in the details - for instance, you wouldn't use that poll to prove that people support background checks (a form of gun control), because the percentage of people who do is actually much higher. You also wouldn't use it to demonstrate that people support banning handguns (another form of gun control), because the percentage of people who want to do that is much lower. Claiming that half of Americans support gun control, therefore there would be support for a national gun registry? No good. No evidence.

I was really only speaking in general terms because what you said was unconvincing. There is support for gun control, therefore it is not inconceivable to me that there would be support for a registry if it aimed to reduce gun crime. You were the one who said that there is no support. You didn't provide any evidence for your statement either.

To use something someone recently said...the fact that gun violence is massively down in the US is fairly common knowledge. I didn't think a source was required, but one won't be hard to find. Most gun violence articles I have seen look something like this.

The difference being, I linked to a poll that corroborated what I said. You have linked to an article that refutes what you said, and attributes falling violence to things like the economy, and not really any of the precautions you are claiming that you take through gun legislation.

But we're not claiming that something might not be implemented properly. We're saying it will be, because there's ample evidence that this is true in anti-gun localities.

Well that's fine, I am perfectly willing to accept that your government is too incompetent to implement my suggestion.

 Smacks wrote:
I was really only speaking in general terms because what you said was unconvincing. There is support for gun control, therefore it is not inconceivable to me that there would be support for a registry if it aimed to reduce gun crime. You were the one who said that there is no support. You didn't provide any evidence for your statement either.

Probably because I'm not the one claiming there's widespread support for a gun registry.

The difference being, I linked to a poll that corroborated what I said. You have linked to an article that refutes what you said, and attributes falling violence to things like the economy, and not really any of the precautions you are claiming that you take through gun legislation.

You said we don't take precautions. I said we do. I said gun violence is falling. You asked for evidence. I provided evidence. Gun violence is way, way down. It gets even lower if you filter by certain socioeconomic data that makes people really uncomfortable. To claim that we have a growing problem when the opposite is in fact that case takes a special kind of thinking.

Well that's fine, I am perfectly willing to accept that your government is too incompetent to implement my suggestion.

It's incompetent and malicious in equal parts, actually. And I'm perfectly willing to accept it, too, which is why I'm not the one trying to put it in charge of everything.

Seaward wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I was really only speaking in general terms because what you said was unconvincing. There is support for gun control, therefore it is not inconceivable to me that there would be support for a registry if it aimed to reduce gun crime. You were the one who said that there is no support. You didn't provide any evidence for your statement either.

Probably because I'm not the one claiming there's widespread support for a gun registry.

No, you claimed there is no support for a gun registry, which is exactly the same kind of claim (and you claimed it first). I actually never claimed there was wide spread support for a registry, I only claimed that there was some support for gun control.

Because of that I think your claim is highly dubious. Feel free to back it up though.

I said gun violence is falling. You asked for evidence. I provided evidence. Gun violence is way, way down.

I am fully aware violent crime is down. What I asked you to provide evidence for it your claim that it is "probably" falling because of the precautions you are taking with firearms. And that statement isn't supported by the article that you linked. In fact, the article suggests other factors are responsible.

 Smacks wrote:
No, you claimed there is no support for a gun registry, which is exactly the same kind of claim (and you claimed it first). I actually never claimed there was wide spread support for a registry, I only claimed that there was some support for gun control.

And you're correct in that (and only that), as long as we define "gun control" as "universal background checks." Beyond that, broad consensus ends.

I am fully aware violent crime is down. What I asked you to provide evidence for it your claim that it is "probably" falling because of the precautions you are taking with firearms. And that statement isn't supported by the article that you linked. In fact, the article suggests other factors are responsible.

Factors like more police officers on the beat and making use of modern methods of using comparative statistics to target and fight crime. I said that we take enough precautions when it comes to guns. The gun crime rate in this country is falling as we've loosened (not tightened) gun laws. Not all precautions are going to be European-style bans or even direct gun legislation. I'm fine with that.

Because gun crime is down. The epidemic people are lighting their hair on fire over doesn't exist.

Seaward wrote:

Smacks wrote:No, you claimed there is no support for a gun registry, which is exactly the same kind of claim (and you claimed it first). I actually never claimed there was wide spread support for a registry, I only claimed that there was some support for gun control.

And you're correct in that (and only that), as long as we define "gun control" as "universal background checks." Beyond that, broad consensus ends.

Gallup has been conducting polls on the subject since the 1950s, and the most recent one has 26% of Americans in favour of a complete handgun ban. That is quite an extreme position, held by quite a significant number of people (one quarter). We could, if we like, label that quarter "hardliners"

It occurs to me that hardliners will very very likely be in favour of any and all gun control, because that's what they are like. There might be some oddballs who don't fit that pattern, but generally it makes sense. So my "guess" would be that at least 25% of Americans would be in favour of registration, especially when there would likely be some support for the idea from non-hardliners.

So my hunch is that your claim: "there is no support for a gun registry", is likely wrong. As 25%+ support would be quite significant., and that's a conservative estimate.

But why leave it to guesses and hunches, when you can google it? According to this Economist/yougov poll 64% of Americans would be in favour of a "mandatory national gun registry", including 43% of gun owners.

I probably don't need to tell you that this makes me feel even more confident that your assertion is wrong. A national gun registry appears to be quite a popular idea.

National registry just won't happen.

Just look at Colorado a few years ago... this is a very purple (going blue) state that had Democrats damn new across the board at the state level.

When they actually passed more gun control laws, the natives curb-stompped them in election recalls and the following election in response to that.

 Smacks wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Smacks wrote:No, you claimed there is no support for a gun registry, which is exactly the same kind of claim (and you claimed it first). I actually never claimed there was wide spread support for a registry, I only claimed that there was some support for gun control.

And you're correct in that (and only that), as long as we define "gun control" as "universal background checks." Beyond that, broad consensus ends.

Gallup has been conducting polls on the subject since the 1950s, and the most recent one has 26% of Americans in favour of a complete handgun ban. That is quite an extreme position, held by quite a significant number of people (one quarter). We could, if we like, label that quarter "hardliners"

It occurs to me that hardliners will very very likely be in favour of any and all gun control, because that's what they are like. There might be some oddballs who don't fit that pattern, but generally it makes sense. So my "guess" would be that at least 25% of Americans would be in favour of registration, especially when there would likely be some support for the idea from non-hardliners.

So my hunch is that your claim: "there is no support for a gun registry", is likely wrong. As 25%+ support would be quite significant., and that's a conservative estimate.

But why leave it to guesses and hunches, when you can google it? According to this Economist/yougov poll 64% of Americans would be in favour of a "mandatory national gun registry", including 43% of gun owners.

I probably don't need to tell you that this makes me feel even more confident that your assertion is wrong. A national gun registry appears to be quite a popular idea.

Actually 52% oppose it, I can google studies that support my opinion too!!!!

According to CNN

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]