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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

Enlighten me then, oh great one. Why is it that it's OK to scoff when people support the usefulness of a gun registry with "at least it'll work some of the time!" but not when people use the exact same argument to argue in favour of guns as a means of protecting oneself from rape? And if you answer that it's because the usefulness of the gun registry is going to be low or whatever, remember the huge amounts of rape where the perpetrator is someone known to the victim.

Pointing out cognitice dissonance is not "dishonesty" just because you don't agree with the people who want a national gun registry.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
1. Data Protection Act.

What does legislation enacted in the UK in 1998 have to do with gun control in America?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

That's a nice suggestion, but those opposed to guns have called repeatably for insurance on firearms as a means of pricing them out of the budget of most people as they want the insurance to cover the cost of the alleged danger you pose to society, not the value of replacing your firearm.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Enlighten me then, oh great one. Why is it that it's OK to scoff when people support the usefulness of a gun registry with "at least it'll work some of the time!" but not when people use the exact same argument to argue in favour of guns as a means of protecting oneself from rape? And if you answer that it's because the usefulness of the gun registry is going to be low or whatever, remember the huge amounts of rape where the perpetrator is someone known to the victim.

Pointing out cognitice dissonance is not "dishonesty" just because you don't agree with the people who want a national gun registry.

So as well as being in favour of dishonesty you are now engaging in false comparisons (ability to defend yourself v registry), and strawmen (people are only objecting to a registry because it'll work some of the time - no, people object to a registry because it is seen as the first step towards confiscation like in the UK and Australia, countries whose gun laws have been praised by this Administration).

It is also not cognitive dissonance because the two subjects you are attempting to forge a link between are not as closely related. It would be like saying that someone is suffering cognative dissonance because they like the heat of summer but not the cold of winter because temperatures are involved.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
1. Data Protection Act.

What does legislation enacted in the UK in 1998 have to do with gun control in America?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

That's a nice suggestion, but those opposed to guns have called repeatably for insurance on firearms as a means of pricing them out of the budget of most people as they want the insurance to cover the cost of the alleged danger you pose to society, not the value of replacing your firearm.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Enlighten me then, oh great one. Why is it that it's OK to scoff when people support the usefulness of a gun registry with "at least it'll work some of the time!" but not when people use the exact same argument to argue in favour of guns as a means of protecting oneself from rape? And if you answer that it's because the usefulness of the gun registry is going to be low or whatever, remember the huge amounts of rape where the perpetrator is someone known to the victim.

Pointing out cognitice dissonance is not "dishonesty" just because you don't agree with the people who want a national gun registry.

So as well as being in favour of dishonesty you are now engaging in false comparisons (ability to defend yourself v registry), and strawmen (people are only objecting to a registry because it'll work some of the time - no, people object to a registry because it is seen as the first step towards confiscation like in the UK and Australia, countries whose gun laws have been praised by this Administration).

It is also not cognitive dissonance because the two subjects you are attempting to forge a link between are not as closely related. It would be like saying that someone is suffering cognative dissonance because they like the heat of summer but not the cold of winter because temperatures are involved.

If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

Grey Templar himself was arguing against alternatives to firearms because the alternatives don't always work, and as soon as someone points out that guns don't always works he turns around with "that's no reason not to try!". As I said, cognitive dissonance.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.

How is it dishonest? The other arguments aren't cognitive dissonance, so I'm not calling them out on being such, becaus they aren't. Listing a number of reasons why alternatives to guns don't work as well and then turning around and saying "that's no reason to not have guns!" when someone does the same to guns is.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
1. Data Protection Act.

What does legislation enacted in the UK in 1998 have to do with gun control in America?

It's an example.

You could enact similar legislation in the USA, to protect people from interference and misuse of their personal data.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

That's a nice suggestion, but those opposed to guns have called repeatably for insurance on firearms as a means of pricing them out of the budget of most people as they want the insurance to cover the cost of the alleged danger you pose to society, not the value of replacing your firearm.

I meant that presumably people insure their guns against loss from theft, etc, as with any other household articles (and cars.) Perhaps you don't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.

How is it dishonest? The other arguments aren't cognitive dissonance, so I'm not calling them out on being such, becaus they aren't. Listing a number of reasons why alternatives to guns don't work as well and then turning around and saying "that's no reason to not have guns!" when someone does the same to guns is.

The answer was already given.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I meant that presumably people insure their guns against loss from theft, etc, as with any other household articles (and cars.) Perhaps you don't.

Even if that were the case private companies =/= government registry

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.

How is it dishonest? The other arguments aren't cognitive dissonance, so I'm not calling them out on being such, becaus they aren't. Listing a number of reasons why alternatives to guns don't work as well and then turning around and saying "that's no reason to not have guns!" when someone does the same to guns is.

The answer was already given.

And I'm disputing that said answer actually matters, because it's not about the argument I'm actually making at all. I'm not making an argument about gun control, I'm not making an argument about any of the arguments used other than the one I quoted, and the argument was more or less "that's not what it usually sounds like when someone else uses that argument". You can keep going on about context as much as you want, the fact remains that following up a line of posts about why no alternatives to guns supposedly work with "that's no reason not to try" when someone makes the same point about guns IS cognitive dissonance.

The insurance issue is silly as well. Insurance does not cover willful acts. If someone intentionally were to shoot someone insurance would not pay out. Accidents are already pretty rare and tend to be covered by things like homeowners insurance and your normal medical insurance.

As for theft insurance, I told my insurance company how much I want to add for theft, I have not had to submit serial numbers or even number/types. My renters insurance covers XXXX amount against theft/damage and my guns are covered in it. I'm sure different companies handle it differently, but that is how mine works. Of course, the odds of mine being stolen are pretty darned low so I'm not really concerned.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Even if that were the case private companies =/= government registry

Yes, a private company is a lot less accountable for what it does with your information.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
1. Data Protection Act.

What does legislation enacted in the UK in 1998 have to do with gun control in America?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

That's a nice suggestion, but those opposed to guns have called repeatably for insurance on firearms as a means of pricing them out of the budget of most people as they want the insurance to cover the cost of the alleged danger you pose to society, not the value of replacing your firearm.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Enlighten me then, oh great one. Why is it that it's OK to scoff when people support the usefulness of a gun registry with "at least it'll work some of the time!" but not when people use the exact same argument to argue in favour of guns as a means of protecting oneself from rape? And if you answer that it's because the usefulness of the gun registry is going to be low or whatever, remember the huge amounts of rape where the perpetrator is someone known to the victim.

Pointing out cognitice dissonance is not "dishonesty" just because you don't agree with the people who want a national gun registry.

So as well as being in favour of dishonesty you are now engaging in false comparisons (ability to defend yourself v registry), and strawmen (people are only objecting to a registry because it'll work some of the time - no, people object to a registry because it is seen as the first step towards confiscation like in the UK and Australia, countries whose gun laws have been praised by this Administration).

It is also not cognitive dissonance because the two subjects you are attempting to forge a link between are not as closely related. It would be like saying that someone is suffering cognative dissonance because they like the heat of summer but not the cold of winter because temperatures are involved.

If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

Grey Templar himself was arguing against alternatives to firearms because the alternatives don't always work, and as soon as someone points out that guns don't always works he turns around with "that's no reason not to try!". As I said, cognitive dissonance.

Because the potential downsides aren't the same at all.

Having a gun isn't going to harm you if you are a victim of a rape in which it provides no defense. But if you are in a situation where you have the opportunity for self-defense, then a gun is much more effective than a taser or pepper spray. If you aren't in that situation, none of these items will help.

Implementing gun control however tramples on the rights of millions while providing no tangible benefit. Seriously, none of the mass shootings which made the headlines would have been prevented by any proposed legislation, all it does is restrict our rights.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I meant that presumably people insure their guns against loss from theft, etc, as with any other household articles (and cars.) Perhaps you don't.

Here in the US at least, if someone breaks into my house and robs me of my TVs, computer, gaming system and guns, my homeowners insurance does cover everything, including the guns. I don't know of many, if any, insurance companies that require an itemized list of items within the home, only that if something should happen and you make a claim, that you have some kind of proof that you indeed bought/possessed whatever you are claiming.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.

How is it dishonest? The other arguments aren't cognitive dissonance, so I'm not calling them out on being such, becaus they aren't. Listing a number of reasons why alternatives to guns don't work as well and then turning around and saying "that's no reason to not have guns!" when someone does the same to guns is.

The answer was already given.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I meant that presumably people insure their guns against loss from theft, etc, as with any other household articles (and cars.) Perhaps you don't.

Even if that were the case private companies =/= government registry

You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes, but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The proof for your claim for contents being for example a serial number identifying the weapon, or camera, or lens, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes, but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.

I see your angle, but the logical counterpoint is that when you enter into business with a private company, you do so of you own volition out of (ideally) a variety of different competing options and can walk away at any time you like - less so on the other hand.


I personally would not have a problem with registering my firearms.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes, but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.

I see your angle, but the logical counterpoint is that when you enter into business with a private company, you do so of you own volition out of (ideally) a variety of different competing options and can walk away at any time you like - less so on the other hand.


I personally would not have a problem with registering my firearms.

Whilst true that you can cease doing business with a private company, that is no guarantee that they are not still using your personal information or selling it to third parties.

There is also what level of problems can a company vs the government do with your data.

At worst, a company just wants to sell you something and you'll end up with annoying advertisements. The government on the other hand is far more sinister.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes, but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.

I see your angle, but the logical counterpoint is that when you enter into business with a private company, you do so of you own volition out of (ideally) a variety of different competing options and can walk away at any time you like - less so on the other hand.


I personally would not have a problem with registering my firearms.

Whilst true that you can cease doing business with a private company, that is no guarantee that they are not still using your personal information or selling it to third parties.

And if that happens, I have the option to cease business with them (theoretically), or sue them if they have breached their contract.

If you'll excuse me, this thread reminds me of a chore I've been meaning to take care of. I own something so obviously dangerous to the public that the government mandated that I have to register it with one of their agencies, so in the (likely) event I commit a crime with it, they can easily trace it - using it without registering it leaves me liable to a $250,000 fine.

Obviously I'm talking about my quadcopter. Because this is America.

Damn, that's one high fine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're happy for private companies to hold your personal data without any legal restriction to their use of it, in a way that obstructs the solution of crimes,

Nonsense. Providing an insurance company with the serial number for the purposes of insuring it in no way obstructs the solution of a crime. The investigating agency would have to show probable cause to compel me or the company to provide them with the information. Second you make the assumption that the information that I pass to a private entity was done with the purpose of frustrating a criminal investigation instead of verifying that I have an item that I am insuring. That assumption is patently false.

The police have no right to any information that is not already in the public domain without demonstrating probable cause. Your argument smacks of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
but you're not happy for the government to hold your data with legal restrictions that prevent it being misused by private companies and helps solve crimes.

Private companies are also held to legal restrictions on how they hold and handle my data. I can choose which companies I do business with, and I may end relationships with them much more easily than I can with a government.

What other data would you like the government to have unfettered access to which "helps solve crimes"? Are there any other Constitutional protections that you would like to dispose of now that you are proposing massive inroads into the 4th Amendment?

Relapse wrote:
Damn, that's one high fine.

I suspect that fine is the fine for having an unregistered aircraft. So it normally applies to things like planes and helicopters. Drones are causing some legal and safety issues, and have thus been classified as aircraft and subject to the same regulations.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


Private companies are also held to legal restrictions on how they hold and handle my data. I can choose which companies I do business with, and I may end relationships with them much more easily than I can with a government.
...

What is the power or agency that holds private companies to account for legal restictions on the use of your personal data?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the power or agency that holds private companies to account for legal restictions on the use of your personal data?

The judicial branch.

Now that I've answered your question you still have some of mine that you did not answer;
What other data would you like the government to have unfettered access to which "helps solve crimes"?
Are there any other Constitutional protections that you would like to dispose of now that you are proposing massive inroads into the 4th Amendment?

Why do you trust the Judicial Branch of the government to oversee companies but not to oversee the Legislative Branch of the government? Do you not believe in the rule of law?

I haven't thought about your questions. They are not relevant to my question to you.

 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.

Very good points.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why do you trust the Judicial Branch of the government to oversee companies but not to oversee the Legislative Branch of the government? Do you not believe in the rule of law?

The judicial branch is also one of the checks and balances against government abuse, which I'm sure you know. I'm also sure that you know most people mean the Executive Branch and Legislative branch when they mention the "government'. Contract law =/= administrative law. The standards applied in review are very different, with most government agencies and departments being given significant latitude due to polycentricity so you are using a false comparison.
Also I may use a variety of tools to bear to pressure private companies into compliance that cannot be used with the same effect against government bodies.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I haven't thought about your questions. They are not relevant to my question to you.

Now is your opportunity to think about them and answer as they are directly related to your questions given their undermining of the 4th Amendment. Do you not believe in the rule of law?

You could enact similar legislation in the USA, to protect people from interference and misuse of their personal data.

You mean the same USA that sifts every email and call ever but can't find anyone, that sells information legally-including things like voter registration for decades-and who's IRS was sifting through opposing groups to try to get their membership lists?

Also, all these lists are subject to FOIA requests even if the government wanted to protect it. Thats why some states have specific laws that protect their lists of CHLers and other licenses from public release.

Emotional Wayne LaPierre Honors Victims Of Background Checks

 Ahtman wrote:
Emotional Wayne LaPierre Honors Victims Of Background Checks

At first I was like "no way he said this" then I was like "hah! Almost got me that time but nope "

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.

How is it dishonest?

It's not, you caught a legitimately amusing example of people moving the goal post wherever it suits them. DC is trying to move them again now, it's not enough to just point out a double standard, now you need to win every conceivable argument against a gun registry and probably against gun control, or else you are "arguing dishonestly" (false dichotomy much?). It's actually kind of amusing given that DC's usual method of debate swings between spamming an overwhelming amount of incoherent "evidence" (which he never explains, or structures into any kind of logical statement), and pretending to be outraged.

 Smacks wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If people actually object to gun registries based on the potential for gun registration then that's fine by me, because that's an actual argument, but it's not like there's no one in this thread arguing against a registry because it "wouldn't do anything". It's not a strawman to claim that this argument is being used to argue against gun control, it'd have been a strawman if I argued that was the only argument being used (which it isn't).

And yet you ignored all other arguments against it to try and claim cognitive dissonance. So yet more dishonesty.

How is it dishonest?

It's not, you caught a legitimately amusing example of people moving the goal post wherever it suits them. DC is trying to move them again now, it's not enough to just point out a double standard, now you need to win every conceivable argument against a gun registry and probably against gun control, or else you are "arguing dishonestly" (false dichotomy much?). It's actually kind of amusing given that DC's usual method of debate swings between spamming an overwhelming amount of incoherent "evidence" (which he never explains, or structures into any kind of logical statement), and pretending to be outraged.

We're not going to get a national gun registry because congress isn't going to legislate one into existence any time soon because nobody wants one. Every poll shows that gun control is a very low priority for the vast majority of voters and the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country realize the they, not criminals, are the targets of proposed legislation. Even a cursory examination of a proposed registry is enough to see that it will have no impact on reducing crime or increasing safety. The only positive that has been mentioned and agreed upon in this thread is that a registry might help find lost or stolen guns. Every gun has a serial number and every manufacturer and licensed dealer is required to keep records. Reporting a gun lost or stolen requires listing the serial number and the authorities will use the serial number to identify the gun. A registry has no impact on that system. It also ignores the fact that there isn't an epidemic of lost/stolen guns or a major problem of not finding them. A registry is a solution to a non existent problem.