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.

Canada used their registry to round guns up IIRC.

And just because something has or hasn't happened doesn't mean it can or cannot happen in the future.

Thus, I prefer to play it safe and not have a registry of gun owners who are simply exercising their constitutional rights and instead have one of confirmed criminals and people who due to their mental state are a threat to society.

Target the people who need to have their constitutional rights restricted, not those who don't need them restricted.


What if we had a national registry of religious affiliation? Or of Free Speech use? Or of voting?

Simply monitoring a person exercising a constitutional right is wrong. Thus we have the loophole of restricting the constitutional rights of people who would be a threat to other citizens if they had that right as well.

We limit the rights of criminals and the insane, while also ensuring we don't unduly or wrongly apply that label. Its an important responsibility and burden.


The biggest problem is where do you draw the line on mental problems to restrict their second amendment rights? I don't know so I'll leave that to professionals.

Its easier with criminals as we have defined crimes.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, I think I'd like to have people with a history of mental illness be eliminated from the okay-to-have-guns pool, thank you.

Already in place, it's simply that most states don't bother reporting it to NICS. See: Virginia Tech massacre.

Again, we're treading, "Say, maybe we should enforce the laws we already have," ground.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Which is why we could have a registry of mentally incompetent individuals.

If a mental care specialist determines someone is potentially dangerous, they would be required to put that person's name into the registry. A name could be removed if another professional determines the person's mental state has improved.

This way we wouldn't have everyone who tries to buy a gun be forced to undergo a mental evaluation but rather it would be a collection of data from certified professionals. The government would not actively collect this data but would be fed it by the healthcare system.

You're concerned about the invasion of privacy that a federal gun registry and universal background check would constitute; but you suggest making everyone with a diagnosed mental disorder be put into a registry.


You really are the epitome of the "less freedoms only for things I don't like" kind of conservative, aren't you?

A registry that GT is suggesting is no where near as invasive as what you are wanting.... I mean, a registry of persons with mental health issues needs only be a name associated with "mental health" it doesn't have to say (I'll use Frazzled as an example here): "Frazzled: incompetent to own firearms due to severe schizophrenia with a case of narcolepsy"... By not knowing WHAT someone has, this allows them to come off the list much, much easier once care has rendered them (if possible) fit again. By keeping things generic... as in a simple "mental health" or "criminal record" listing, you are in pretty much no way violating the US's HIPAA laws and regs.

"Now Mr, uh, Ensis Ferrae, I see that your name popped up as being on this mental health list. I'm afraid that we will be unable to offer you that employment opportunity we discussed earlier. Heh, well, good luck, and I sure hope it's just ADHD and not depression or anything dangerous! Heh, heh..."

d-usa wrote:Here is what cracks me up:

We should never have a registry of guns, because just like Hitler they will use that registry to round up all the guns (never mind that never happened).

We should however have a registry of all people with mental illnesses, because Hitler never ever used that kind of information in deciding to round anybody up.

Damn you for beating me to this low-hanging fruit.

Grey Templar wrote:Canada used their registry to round guns up IIRC.

It's been well-established in the other threat that the registry did not result in anyone's firearms being confiscated, to which even my ardent opponent agreed.

Fair enough, but its still a possible danger with having a gun registry. And that threat alone means we shouldn't have one.

 azazel the cat wrote:
It's been well-established in the other threat that the registry did not result in anyone's firearms being confiscated, to which even my ardent opponent agreed.

From a CNN/ORC poll taken in early April, found on this exhaustive page:

"If the federal government does create a national list of people who own guns, do you think the government would use that information to take guns away from people who own them?"

Yes: 66%
No: 32%
Unsure: 2%

Two-thirds of the country thinks our government will act differently than Canada's.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
It's been well-established in the other threat that the registry did not result in anyone's firearms being confiscated, to which even my ardent opponent agreed.

From a CNN/ORC poll taken in early April, found on this exhaustive page:

"If the federal government does create a national list of people who own guns, do you think the government would use that information to take guns away from people who own them?"

Yes: 66%
No: 32%
Unsure: 2%

Two-thirds of the country thinks our government will act differently than Canada's.

Two thirds of your country believes angels are real; that doesn't make it so.

And just because you don't believe its real doesn't make it false.

Okay, so apparently this is the "Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath" thread. Reading the last page or so of posts I was starting to think I was somewhere else. This is probably an appropriate place to ask this question!

So, a lot of the time people in these threads seem to be talking about defending their homes from people coming into them. As an Australian, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm wondering if this is a culture clash. See, my understanding here is that if someone is breaking into my home, it's probably because they want to steal my stuff. As people generally don't like being caught or arrested, they tend to do this when they believe nobody is around (and part of protecting your home is avoiding the appearance of it being uninhabited).

So the only time I'm likely* to run into these people is when they break into my home believing that I'm not there and it turns out that I am. In those cases, the overwhelming majority of the time I'd expect them to instantly flee, because they don't want to get caught.

There are a couple of what seem like pertinent points here to me:

1. I don't have much of a reason to want a gun, because if I ever run into someone in my house they will probably run away.
2. the person unlawfully in my house has no reason to want a gun, because they don't expect anyone to be there and would run if there was someone there.
3. if I had a gun, it's possible that 2 would change, because they are less likely to be able to run away if confronted (though it's worth noting that, AFAIK, under Australian law if I am armed with a gun and the other party is not then it would be illegal for me to shoot them unless I had no other choice)

So I am sort of wondering about the cultural understanding of Americans vs mine, here. It seems like I'm better off not having a gun (or, rather, not being able to own one) in this case.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Two thirds of your country believes angels are real; that doesn't make it so.

I'm not sure that pithily dismissing the opinion of the majority is a wise tack to take for a guy who's been rending his garments over the fact that the majority wanted universal background checks yet failed to get them.

Believe they would announce it first on rounding up illegal weapons....or we get enough warning from the political and judicial battle that would occur from the news media. Actually think quite a few states senators and reps are getting a reality slap due to weapon manufactor companies are starting to move. Even the accesories(sp) companies like Magpul are going to weapon friendly states. Rick Perry pounce on that oppurtunity forTX. I done the same. I also though before I start throwing new laws into the mix I find whats breaking or holding back the old laws and remedy those first before adding another layer on. Knee Jerk Reaction and the "Attitude of "NOW NOW NOW" is epic fail in the making or was shown lately. Besides it depends on how you look at it. You already filed and numbered when you turn 18 by the gov't....unless you don't go to the post offce and register lol but that bites you big time later on in life

The HIPAA Law and releasing mental illness info is serious crap. Only way I can think of around it is a seperate Branch in FBI dealing strictly with that on a ISOLATED terminal. and what.....say Top Secret clearence can only access from an approve list of personnel. Would have to involve the S.C. input into creating and maintaining that info. Like GTN system (Global Tracking Network) only individuals that can work it are the ones thats been authorized by a Col or higher....which on the civilian side of the house be a GS14 or District Director....an idea what GTN is...with your last 4 SSN and full name....I can go back as far as ten yeurs and track your movement CONUS and OCONUS.....all of you to me is nothing but....cargo in transit or awaiting transit hehe BTW this is info already on the internet. You just can't access it.


edit
Hivefleetplastic

1. I don't have much of a reason to want a gun, because if I ever run into someone in my house they will probably run away.
2. the person unlawfully in my house has no reason to want a gun, because they don't expect anyone to be there and would run if there was someone there.
3. if I had a gun, it's possible that 2 would change, because they are less likely to be able to run away if confronted (though it's worth noting that, AFAIK, under Australian law if I am armed with a gun and the other party is not then it would be illegal for me to shoot them unless I had no other choice)

So I am sort of wondering about the cultural understanding of Americans vs mine, here. It seems like I'm better off not having a gun (or, rather, not being able to own one) in this case.

We in the US grew up with the 2nd amendment. I'm not going to stand on a soup box and preach why you should have a weapon. Nor will I preach why you shouldn't have/own a weapon. I will though preach and I pretty base line on my view. Its your responsibility. ITS A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY. Your weapon and how you maintain positive control of your weapon is totally in your lane. You as a mature adult know the difference between right and wrong....I'm going to hold here. Being I live and worked in two different worlds. What I do in combat to eliminate a threat to me and mine is not something I would do in the civilian world.

 Jihadin wrote:
We in the US grew up with the 2nd amendment. I'm not going to stand on a soup box and preach why you should have a weapon. Nor will I preach why you shouldn't have/own a weapon. I will though preach and I pretty base line on my view. Its your responsibility. ITS A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY. Your weapon and how you maintain positive control of your weapon is totally in your lane. You as a mature adult know the difference between right and wrong....I'm going to hold here. Being I live and worked in two different worlds. What I do in combat to eliminate a threat to me and mine is not something I would do in the civilian world.

Could you maybe try that again, in English?

 Ahtman wrote:
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid

I'd like to add

Just because your paranoid,
don't mean there not out to get you (unless you own a gun, because owning a gun stops you being a victim of crime. You know it makes sense, I'm Sam Kekovich)


On a less wacky note, people who talk about getting guns for protection in Australia are idiots. By the time you get one out of your gun safe and loaded the criminals will have already been and gone. There seems to be this strange belief that having a gun stops you being a victim of crime , if someone gets the jump on you having a gun in a concealed holster really doesn't help you much, however i suppose it would stop you being a victim of knife crime or erm...fist crime.

If you can't see the connection between easily available guns and violent crime I have to wonder about you. Guns give people a non-immediate (as in not directly stabbing ect) way to kill people. having more guns around allows criminals to gain more untraceable weapons through smuggling, dodgy sales practices and stealing (just look at all the peoples minis who get stolen because someone thinks the case holds a pistol).

Put it this way, my country has feth all guns , we also have feth all gun crime ( and most of that seems to be between organised crime elements) , we also have feth all fear about being a victim of gun crime.
You can keep your 2nd amendment and live in your fear-ridden society.
Enjoy.


I'd also like to add people in these gun debates (me included) always talk about criminals like they are a totally seperate species. It's a ridiculous concept.

One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.

What's your question about cultural context? We have a lot more armed criminals than it sounds like you guys have, thus our chances of running into one are better. Most people won't. Most people's houses will never catch on fire, either, but that doesn't make the rope ladder on the third floor a foolish, unnecessary precaution.

We also subscribe to the notion that once someone shows intent to harm, you're well within your rights to defend yourself.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Two thirds of your country believes angels are real; that doesn't make it so.

I'm not sure that pithily dismissing the opinion of the majority is a wise tack to take for a guy who's been rending his garments over the fact that the majority wanted universal background checks yet failed to get them.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't believe I've ever made an appeal to the majority on this issue, nor brought up the idea that lots of people are in favour of background checks, as it's never been pertinent to my argument. I've been arguing only from my own soapbox.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't believe I've ever made an appeal to the majority on this issue, nor brought up the idea that lots of people are in favour of background checks, as it's never been pertinent to my argument. I've been arguing only from my own soapbox.

That's possible.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.

quoted for truth . I came back and amended my post to say something similar and saw you had written it with much more style.

do you not think, seaward that having guns readily available , increases the chances of crime with a gun?

Bullockist wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.

quoted for truth . I came back and amended my post to say something similar and saw you had written it with much more style.

do you not think, seaward that having guns readily available , increases the chances of crime with a gun?

Statistics have strongly implied as much. (but not proven, because that's not how stats work)

Bullockist wrote:
do you not think, seaward that having guns readily available , increases the chances of crime with a gun?

We have more guns than cars in this country, and we have a feth of a lot of cars. I have no doubt the fact that there is nearly one gun per person in the US has a lot to do with the fact that there's more gun crime.

But I also think you can't get toothpaste back in the tube.

do you not think, seaward that having guns readily available , increases the chances of crime with a gun?

Your not answering the question. Read the question.

Believe though he is asking for your opinion

 Seaward wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
One thing I didn't bring up in my post about cultural context up there (which I'd love to hear thoughts on, American posters! and even Australian ones on whether you feel the same way) is that being willing to break a law doesn't mean you're willing to break all laws. Being willing to commit one crime (like burglary, say) doesn't mean you want to commit murder or firearms-related offenses. The spectre of all the criminals having guns because they're criminals and will commit any crime because they will commit one crime is just silly.

What's your question about cultural context? We have a lot more armed criminals than it sounds like you guys have, thus our chances of running into one are better. Most people won't. Most people's houses will never catch on fire, either, but that doesn't make the rope ladder on the third floor a foolish, unnecessary precaution.

We also subscribe to the notion that once someone shows intent to harm, you're well within your rights to defend yourself.

It was this post where I sort of ran through my thought process (which I think is pretty typical of an Australian in this case) on why I might find someone in my home and the likely outcome of that encounter. It was borne of the notion I keep seeing in these threads of a "home invader" and the need to defend oneself from them. I feel like it'd be helpful to look at that notion in more depth, because a lot of the arguments in these threads seem to be built on it.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It was this post where I sort of ran through my thought process (which I think is pretty typical of an Australian in this case) on why I might find someone in my home and the likely outcome of that encounter. It was borne of the notion I keep seeing in these threads of a "home invader" and the need to defend oneself from them. I feel like it'd be helpful to look at that notion in more depth, because a lot of the arguments in these threads seem to be built on it.

Yeah. Well, like I said, there's a greater chance a home invader here will be armed.

It's not just home invasions, though. We have the right to carry guns over here when we go out and about as well.

What's "home invader" actually mean? I don't know if this is an unfair characterisation, but it comes across as a deliberately charged term to me compared to something like "burglar."

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
What's "home invader" actually mean? I don't know if this is an unfair characterisation, but it comes across as a deliberately charged term to me compared to something like "burglar."

It generally means that, though it's a generalist term to capture all incidences of...well, home invasion. The case that determined the police have no duty to protect individual citizens is a particularly gruesome example of a home invasion, and as fine an argument as I've ever read for owning a firearm.

 Seaward wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
What's "home invader" actually mean? I don't know if this is an unfair characterisation, but it comes across as a deliberately charged term to me compared to something like "burglar."

It generally means that, though it's a generalist term to capture all incidences of...well, home invasion. The case that determined the police have no duty to protect individual citizens is a particularly gruesome example of a home invasion, and as fine an argument as I've ever read for owning a firearm.

Interesting case. The wikipedia article on it is pretty light on the detail of the crime itself, though. Specifically, it doesn't talk at all about the motives of the attackers or how the situation ended. It also doesn't provide any information on why the court came to that decision. Heck, it doesn't even say if the perpetrators of that crime used firearms themselves. It does refer to one of them using a knife.

I tried looking up more information on the case, but pretty much all of the results seem to be articles about how that court case means you're all going to die and need to get a gun before it's too late because the police won't help you. It looks like perhaps the decision is based on trying to avoid a situation where a police officer has a reason to try not to help someone because doing so might open them up to liability - or, alternatively, a situation where the police are liable for not having enough resources available at a particular time to respond to all emergencies.

Its just that, in Australia, 'Home Invasion' is very, very far down on the list of crimes I worry about occurring.
A home invasion requires me to be at home. What kind of stupid burglar robs me while I'm at home, and not while I'm at work?
If I do get robbed while I'm at home, it is highly unlikely that I'd be able to get to a firearm even if I owned one - it would be in a safe childproof place, which means if I'm in the living, dining, kitchen or bathroom I can't actually get to my gun.


I don't understand why people are opposed to having a registry of guns. Your car needs to be registered to you, and registration needs to change if you sell it. Are you afraid that the government is going to come round up your cars?

A few weeks back, my neighbour's house was broken into (IN BROAD DAYLIGHT - 11am). The miscreant was confronted by myself and a neighbour from across the road. WE had no guns, knives or anything else that could be construed as a weapon.

We just challenged him and he dropped his booty (two sets of car keys and an ipod ) and bolted.

I've seen him around the street a few times since. There's a house down the road known to the narcs for dealing - but they have no actual proof nor enough "probable cause" to effect any arrests.

The three of us (myself, and the two neighbours) are also on good terms with the local OMC (Nomads). Seems this miscreant was also known for attempting to trespass on their turf.

Discussions were made with the occupants of the suspicious house down the road between those occupants and the OMC. I believe an agreement was reached vis-a-vis the burglary of dwellings by their customers (in this street) and the not-entirely-unexpected natural consequences (sudden and spontaneous gas leak and explosion of their dwelling) of this.

The street now has an aura of "this house might be protected by bikers. How lucky do you feel?" and is much quieter.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.

In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Interesting case. The wikipedia article on it is pretty light on the detail of the crime itself, though. Specifically, it doesn't talk at all about the motives of the attackers or how the situation ended. It also doesn't provide any information on why the court came to that decision. Heck, it doesn't even say if the perpetrators of that crime used firearms themselves. It does refer to one of them using a knife.

I tried looking up more information on the case, but pretty much all of the results seem to be articles about how that court case means you're all going to die and need to get a gun before it's too late because the police won't help you. It looks like perhaps the decision is based on trying to avoid a situation where a police officer has a reason to try not to help someone because doing so might open them up to liability - or, alternatively, a situation where the police are liable for not having enough resources available at a particular time to respond to all emergencies.

Does the detail actually matter, though? The motive's pretty irrelevant, as is the weapon used.

The "police don't have a duty to protect you" stuff is pretty irrelevant to the cultural question at hand, but yeah, it's taken from the standpoint that you can't sue the government if the cops fail to keep you from harm. Either way, that situation - armed intruders - isn't the norm in America, but it's also not unthinkable. Goes back to the fire escape analogy from earlier.