can someone tell me any objective benefit of gun registration?[W488, 1267]

[haymarket]

First and foremost: What relavance does a list of ALL registries have to do with my claim that "registration is a tool for confiscation."

Yup - registration can lead to confiscation and the denial of gun ownership. So what? Is that the general rule or the exception to the rule in some authoritarian nations?

 

[haymarket]

Ignoratio elenchi:

all that I posted are true.

 

[haymarket]

Ignoratio elenchi:

You guys really do not like it when your truisms and leaps of faith are put to the test do you?

 

[Crimefree]

Actually the survey has never been challenged with any verifiable proof that the results are not as reported. So the responsibility is completely and totally upon you.

You were given at least three challenges to that claim. Your dishonesty in trying to resurrect the ashes is interesting.

You accepted the registry was 70% inaccurate.
You accepted that the survey respondents had no training in evaluation of the use of the registry.
You accepted the 98% of the registry queries counted as useful to the police in that survey were automatic computer generated queries.
You have not shown the unidentified by the survey 2.4% were useful or how they could possibly have been determined as useful

Parliament never investigated for the auditor general specifically trained professionals did. The RCMP never reported on anything he was not fully in control of and fully aware of.

Both Mauser and Lott have a Lott more qualification and credibility than you will ever have to make the observations they did.

You are a complete fraud. Your claim is as dead as the Dodo and nothing but ash. I'm tired of your outright lies.

Claiming an organisation that lied, obstructed and tried to defraud the Canadian parliament and Canadian citizens as a source of untainted unquestionable research on the very activities which caused the lies, obstruction and fraud is as dishonest as one can get.

If you cannot refute everything on this page anyone of them sufficient to bury your wonderful immaculate research claim don't bother.

 

[Zyphlin]

You mean instead of the current system where they use the serial number on the firearm and trace it to point of origin, AND then simply ask who purchased it? And then follow to who sold it? Like is done now?

Yes, exactly.

It would remove layers of the process, which would be a benefit.

Scenario one: Look for who manufactured a gun based on serial number. Contact manufacturer to see what shop received the weapon to sell. Contact shop to see if they remember, or have anything (Credit Card receipt? Hope it’s not a cash payment?), indicating who purchased the gun. Contact the person who purchased the gun.

Scenario two: Look for who registered the gun. Contact the person who registered the gun.

Objectively, that is a benefit to the police to be able to cut out those earlier steps.

You mean like when an owner who has a firearm stolen REPORTS it to the police while ALSO giving them the serial number of said stolen firearm and THUS when said firearm is confiscated by police from a criminal...said firearm has been reported stolen and returned to original owner? You know...the system we currently have in place?

Yep. However, it basically presents a potential redundancy to the situation.

I don’t believe that there’s 100% compliance with reporting of a stolen firearm, and unless someone can show me evidence that there is that would be my assumption. Some likely don’t get reported due to negligence, others possibly due to ignorance of the requirement, others still possibly out of simple laziness. That’s not even mentioning instances where it’s not reported for more questionable reasons. If even one of those people who would end up not reporting their firearm stolen would have registered their firearm upon purchase, then that provides a tangible objective benefit to police because it provides a means to find the last known owner of a firearm that would otherwise not be easily possible.

You mean other than evidence of commision of the OTHER crime...the one where they used the gun?

Yes. My suggestion of a benefit wasn’t in regards to the benefit of solving crime of gun theft, but rather solving a crime that used a gun that was possibly stolen.

Say there was a murder with a gun that was discarded. There are multiple suspects, but none really stand out and so police are having to use resources somewhat equally on all the leads.

However, they can determine the gun used in the crime was last owned by Person X. Talking with Person X, they learn of the gun being stolen out of Person X’s car and that Person X had seen a man roughly 6 feet tall with short brown hair and a stocky build running from his vehicle.

The description of the individual Person X saw happens to coincide with the description of one of the multiple suspects in the murder. Thus providing the police a possible reason to focus their resources in the investigation a bit heavier towards that individual.

Now, if the person had alerted the police previously of the theft, then the same thing could happen without registration. If the person HADN’T alerted the police, and all guns weren’t registered, then the police would’ve at best gone through the steps I outlined above and hope that Person X bought the gun in some kind of verifiable way. With registration, even if he didn’t alert the police of the theft the gun could more quickly be traced back to him, allowing the police to discover the information about the theft and take possible action regarding the new information. That is an objective benefit that registration would help make a reality.

The question was “can someone tell me any objective benefit of gun registration”. I absolutely can see potential benefits, and provided one example of how I think it could be a benefit.

The question was not whether or not the benefits of gun registration are SIGNIFICANT, or if the benefits outweigh the possible risks, or if the benefits are redundant. It’s simply asking if there are objective benefits. Thinking about that question from an honest neutral standpoint rather than one that starts from a position of “Gun registration is bad!”, my answer would seem to be yes…there are some objective benefits I can see to gun registration.

 

[Crimefree]

Yup - registration can lead to confiscation and the denial of gun ownership. So what? Is that the general rule or the exception to the rule in some authoritarian nations?

No all registries have lead to confiscation without exception. You were challenged to produce one which had not. Get on with it.

 

[haymarket]

You were given at least three challenges to that claim. Your dishonesty in trying to resurrect the ashes is interesting.

You accepted the registry was 70% inaccurate.
You accepted that the survey respondents had no training in evaluation of the use of the registry.
You accepted the 98% of the registry queries counted as useful to the police in that survey were automatic computer generated queries.

Where are you getting this from? In which post of mine did I "accept" these claims of yours?

Both Mauser and Lott have a Lott more qualification and credibility than you will ever have to make the observations they did.

You give them that because they agree with your preconceived beliefs.

Claiming an organisation that lied, obstructed and tried to defraud the Canadian parliament and Canadian citizens as a source of untainted unquestionable research on the very activities which caused the lies, obstruction and fraud is as dishonest as one can get.

not by a long shot --- you take the cake for claiming that the Canadian survey was tainted when you have no verifiable evidence that it was. The word FRAUD does not even begin to describe the crap you have attempted to pull here.

Your precious survey done by a partisan zealot with his own axe to grind was admitted by him to be non-scientific. That sinks it right out of the gate and is by his own hand.

 

[haymarket]

No all registries have lead to confiscation without exception. You were challenged to produce one which had not. Get on with it.

Then produce that list. Lets see it. Lets see what the numerator is and lets see what the denominator is and lets see the mathematical and probabilities between them.

Here is a news bulletin for you about the rules of evidence in debate: I have made no claims of fact about registrations and confiscations so I have to produce nothing to support any claim. You on the other hand, have made claims and you have produced no such evidence.

But your own so called "challenge" falls flat on its face. Here in the USA we have registration in several states and local areas. In all those places the right to keep and bear arms is intact. registration did NOT lead to confiscation and the denial of gun rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

So there is your proof right here in the good old USA.

 

[BretJ]

Only if he already has a record. What about the 18 year old gang member who hasn't been convicted of any felonies, but is carrying an unregistered firearm?

And what exactly does that offer? You don't think measures are already in place to cover those instances? Again, what does registration offer that other laws and regulations regarding criminal possession of a firearm does not?

 

[Kal'Stang]

The Constitution recognizes no such concept.

Nor does it disallow such a concept.

 

[haymarket]

Nor does it disallow such a concept.

It very specifically and emphatically and without a doubt rejects the idea of INFRINGEMENTS since they could have used that term implying even small incremental steps but they did NOT use it instead using the far definitive and final SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Kal'Stang]

States have had registration. There is no precedent or decision for your argument.

It is a tool for law enforcement to do their job to serve and protect the public. That in no way negates your right to keep and bear arms.

Did you forget that me and you are talking about privacy rights? Currently there is only one place in America that has gun registration. And its so new as to have not had a chance to be seen in a courtroom yet.

And how is this "tool" going to help law enforcement? Criminals do not register their guns. They will also file off any identifying marks such as serial numbers. So that seems pretty worthless to me.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It very specifically and emphatically and without a doubt rejects the idea of INFRINGEMENTS since they could have used that term implying even small incremental steps but they did NOT use it instead using the far definitive and final SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

And what do those words mean? You yourself just admitted that it uses the "far definitive and final" SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If it is so far definitive and final then it would apply to any and all infringements. Small and big. Something so final would not just mean big infringements. It would include ALL infringements.

 

[Federalist]

To say that registration can lead to confiscation and denial of the right to guns is part and parcel of those and belongs in the same list as all are true...... as far as they go.

"Can lead to"? That's not at all what I said. Why are you lying? I said that gun registration facilitates confiscation.

 

[Zyphlin]

Did you forget that me and you are talking about privacy rights? Currently there is only one place in America that has gun registration. And its so new as to have not had a chance to be seen in a courtroom yet.

And how is this "tool" going to help law enforcement? Criminals do not register their guns. They will also file off any identifying marks such as serial numbers. So that seems pretty worthless to me.

Again, coming at this as a thought exercise....

You're argument is every criminal who uses a firearm will think to remove the serial numbers?

 

[haymarket]

Did you forget that me and you are talking about privacy rights? Currently there is only one place in America that has gun registration. And its so new as to have not had a chance to be seen in a courtroom yet.

And how is this "tool" going to help law enforcement? Criminals do not register their guns. They will also file off any identifying marks such as serial numbers. So that seems pretty worthless to me.

Check the link I provided and you will find that is incorrect. the following states have registration - Hawaii, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, California and the District of Columbia.

You seem to be under the impression that only career criminals with records commit crimes. Please tell me what they were before their first?

You also seem to believe that criminals are bright, are smart, never make stupid mistakes.

 

[haymarket]

And what do those words mean? You yourself just admitted that it uses the "far definitive and final" SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. If it is so far definitive and final then it would apply to any and all infringements. Small and big. Something so final would not just mean big infringements. It would include ALL infringements.

It means that government cannot create an environment where the people cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms. That is very definitive.

There was no such thing as INFRINGEMENTS. That is a modernist creation of the gun lobby.

 

[haymarket]

"Can lead to"? That's not at all what I said. Why are you lying? I said that gun registration facilitates confiscation.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Federalist]

A distinction without a difference.

Psst. Your illiteracy is showing....

 

[BretJ]

Check the link I provided and you will find that is incorrect. the following states have registration - Hawaii, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, California and the District of Columbia.

You seem to be under the impression that only career criminals with records commit crimes. Please tell me what they were before their first?

You also seem to believe that criminals are bright, are smart, never make stupid mistakes.

Those that are generally become politicians..............

Regardless. Registration only works as a crime solver if a weapon is recovered and was owned by the perpetrator. Without a weapon, it is useless in solving a crime. Unless the weapon recovered was registered by the perp it is useless. If a criminal never registered a firearm, registration is useless.....

 

[blackjack50]

all that I posted are true.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

And my response was that they may in fact be true...but they are irrelevant to our current discussion. If you would like to those...make a new thread somewhere else.

You guys really do not like it when your truisms and leaps of faith are put to the test do you?

Actually. I'm fine with it. Given we (the collective group who have disagreed with you in here) have given you dozens of examples...and you have YET to provide 1 example of when registration did not lead to confiscation.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hmm, interesting possibly thought exercise...

One potential benefit of gun registration.

In a situation where a registered gun is used in a crime and then discarded and found by police, it would allow for the police to know whom last legally owned the firearm. This is a benefit in multiple circumstances:

1. If the owner is the one who actually possessed the gun up until he discarded it, then it allows the police an easy means of identifying him as a potential suspect.

2. If the owners gun had been stolen, lost, or otherwise misplaced then it provides an individual who may be able to provide information to the police that could assist in tracking down the individual who committed the crime.

Had there been no registrations of guns, then the police would have no clue who the last legal owner was, and thus would have no clear individual to speak with to determine that the gun was stolen which could provide potential evidence in an investigation.

1) if people reported the gun stolen you achieve all of the above

2) the police already have the tools to find who was the retail purchaser of the gun

3) do you think someone who leaves a gun they know is registered to them at the scene of the crime is realistic?

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, coming at this as a thought exercise....

You're argument is every criminal who uses a firearm will think to remove the serial numbers?

not if the gun cannot be traced to him. I was a federal LEO for about 24 years, I can only recall one case of obliterated serial numbers and not one gun crime where the defendant was the legal retail buyer of the firearm.

 

[blackjack50]

Yup - registration can lead to confiscation and the denial of gun ownership.

Ok. Then you agree. Registration CAN lead to registration.

And thusly you are stating there is MERIT in those who do not TRUST registration schemes.

So what? Is that the general rule or the exception to the rule in some authoritarian nations?

Do you consider the UK, Connecticut, New York, Australia, Canada, the EU, and many other European nations, to be authoritarian?

Can you provide an example of a nation/state that enacted registration and it did NOT lead to confiscation?

 

[TurtleDude]

It means that government cannot create an environment where the people cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms. That is very definitive.

There was no such thing as INFRINGEMENTS. That is a modernist creation of the gun lobby.

that's crap because you have claimed that as long as you can own one gun the congress cannot infringe on your rights

but that is specious because the prohibition is to what congress cannot do as opposed to what you can do. a law does not become constitutional merely because one affected party can "ENJOY" his second amendment rights.