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

[haymarket]

When? I haven't seen it. List one nation. One state. Please. I have asked you to do so at least 4 times now. I have yet to see a single location. And please. Give me a post number if you like.

I did even better than what you requested. I provided seven states right here in the good old red white and blue which have registration and in all of them the right to keep and bear arms is alive and being exercised. They are New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Michigan, Illinois, California, and Maryland plus DC.

 

[haymarket]

that's nonsense. unless you can prove GOP politicians would have offered a NFA or a GCA in 34 or 68 you are wrong

the fact is-the DNC is far more anti gun owner rights than the GOP. EVERY DEM on the USSC voted against gun rights in Heller and McDonald.

The facts are that Republicans supported and voted for the laws you hate and blame on democrats. That is reality. That is fact. That is history.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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?

Career criminals will. Crimes of passion and such won't of course. But a serial number on a gun doesn't do much to tell you who committed a crime anyways. Yeah, it may lead a cop to the owner of a gun, but that's it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

Bold: Which post?

As for the rest, yes I know, there are crimes of passion and such where people commit crimes without forethought. But a serial number on a gun does not tell you who fired the gun.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

Wrong. If there was no such thing as "infringements" then why the hell is the word in the 2nd amendment?

 

[Crimefree]

I did even better than what you requested. I provided seven states right here in the good old red white and blue which have registration and in all of them the right to keep and bear arms is alive and being exercised. They are New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Michigan, Illinois, California, and Maryland plus DC.

The right does not include being mauled half to death, trampled on and choked as doing well and being alive and well. Dishonesty again?

 

[Crimefree]

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

You accepted them as factual and true when you never bothered to rebut them. A consequence of posting ad hominem remarks instead in the hope mud is seen as some kind of answer.

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

No they are considerably more credibly than a bunch of lying, fraudulent, toadie bureaucrats you insist are some kind of reliable evidence.

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.

The only fraud being committed here is by you attempting to desperately inflate your fatally punctured registry doll

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.

Irrelevant bull**** is not rebuttal. Any sensible person will simply see you for what you are.

Scientific or not is not a measure of it accuracy. Where do you get there straws you so desperately grasp at. It like watching crabs in a bucket.

Partisan zealot I think describes a person who no matter what the damning evidence refuses accept his belief and dogma are incorrect. You have one piece of shoddy, disreputable, propagandistic evidence in the face of a multitude of register failures and damning evidence. Hmmm!

 

[Crimefree]

I did even better than what you requested. I provided seven states right here in the good old red white and blue which have registration and in all of them the right to keep and bear arms is alive and being exercised. They are New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Michigan, Illinois, California, and Maryland plus DC.

And all seven used that registration to confiscate firearms. What is your point?

 

[haymarket]

Wrong. If there was no such thing as "infringements" then why the hell is the word in the 2nd amendment?

It is NOT in the Second Amendment.

 

[haymarket]

And all seven used that registration to confiscate firearms. What is your point?

Which firearms were confiscated and why?

 

[haymarket]

You accepted them as factual and true when you never bothered to rebut them.

In which post did I accept those statement as factual and true?

The rest of your post is merely an attack on me trying to justify your own personal beliefs.

 

[haymarket]

The right does not include being mauled half to death, trampled on and choked as doing well and being alive and well. Dishonesty again?

I hav no idea what you are talking about.

 

[haymarket]

Bold: Which post?

As for the rest, yes I know, there are crimes of passion and such where people commit crimes without forethought. But a serial number on a gun does not tell you who fired the gun.

my post 883

 

[Kal'Stang]

It is NOT in the Second Amendment.

You have even quoted it before. "Shall not be infringed". The very last words in the 2nd Amendment. Or are you really trying to quibble over my use of the plural form? Please tell me that you're not making that kind of petty arguement?

 

[haymarket]

You have even quoted it before. "Shall not be infringed". The very last words in the 2nd Amendment. Or are you really trying to quibble over my use of the plural form? Please tell me that you're not making that kind of petty arguement?

Petty argument?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It is central. It is key. It is important. And it is what it is and what it is is NOT INFRINGEMENTS.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Petty argument?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It is central. It is key. It is important. And it is what it is and what it is is NOT INFRINGEMENTS.

Yes, petty. The words "infringed", "infringement", "infringementS", "infringe" etc etc all have the same meaning in the end. To discard the plural form just because its not used specifically is petty...and unrealistic. You would have to go through every single law in the law books to include the plural or singluar form (depending on what was used) with your arguement.

With your arguement of not allowing the plural form to be used then it would be perfectly acceptable for the government to make a law that simply makes alot of infringements and it would be perfectly OK to do as no single infringment happened. Hell, with your arguement if any law just says "murders" and omits the word "murderers" then 2 people could kill someone and one of them would get off scott free because the plural form was not used.

 

[haymarket]

Yes, petty. The words "infringed", "infringement", "infringementS", "infringe" etc etc all have the same meaning in the end.

No they do not. An INFRINGEMENT is something that can be on any level in any degree no matter how large or how small or how significant or how minor. To pretend that the government cannot put forth even the most minor regulation because it is an INFRINGEMENT - and that is the only logical conclusion if one accepts the INFRINGEMENTS language - is ridiculous in the extreme as it would deny the government even the most minor ability to regulate the most minor of things associated with guns or any arms at all including the most powerful that extend far far beyond mere guns. Remember the Amendment does not use the term guns or firearms but arms which can include any weapon.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is far more definitive and far more decisive showing an action that actually negates the right to keep and bear arms and deprive the citizen of exercising it.

Of course, this incremental distinction is lost since the gun lobby has been highly successful in brainwashing their supporters into thinking that the two terms are the same thing when they clearly are not at all the same thing.

Again, some here wish the Constitution said something different than what it actually does but pretending and lying about it does not change the wording or its meaning.

 

[Zyphlin]

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

I already addressed this.

IF every person reported a gun stolen, then yes there would be no objective benefit.

However, every person doesn't report a gun stolen. And not just for nefarious reasons. Negligence, laziness, ignorance of the requirement could all contributed to a reason why someone would not report a gun stolen.

In the event that a gun was stolen or lost and then was used in a crime, but the person didn't report it stolen, then registration would potentially allow LEO's to more easily learn this fact and possibly gain information that could help with the investigation into the current crime at hand.

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

Already addressed as well. Registration would provide a much more expedited method of determining who the last legal owner of the gun was. Determining that faster, and with less resources, is objectively a benefit.

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

I believe it's absolutely realistic to occur in certain cases. Routinely? No. But criminals, and people in general, are hardly renowned for always thinking logically or with great forethought. People, in general, sometimes do poor decisions in crisis situations.

Even if it happens rarely there is some objective benefit from it. Unless you're suggesting that 100% never happens?

Again, as I said in a later post....if the question is "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration that is substantial?" then you get a different answer. If the question is "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration that overrides the potential negatives?" then you get a different answer. If the question is "Even if there are benefits, should we do gun registration?" you'd get a different answer.

But the questoin seems to simply be "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration".

Looking at it objectively, and without a preconcieved bias one way or another or an irrational fear of "OMG! If I say something that isn't 100% lock step in line with the most extreme of pro-gun people then I must be anti-gun!", I can honestly say that yes....I can see some objective benefits to gun registration.

 

[TurtleDude]

I already addressed this.

IF every person reported a gun stolen, then yes there would be no objective benefit.

However, every person doesn't report a gun stolen. And not just for nefarious reasons. Negligence, laziness, ignorance of the requirement could all contributed to a reason why someone would not report a gun stolen.

In the event that a gun was stolen or lost and then was used in a crime, but the person didn't report it stolen, then registration would potentially allow LEO's to more easily learn this fact and possibly gain information that could help with the investigation into the current crime at hand.



Already addressed as well. Registration would provide a much more expedited method of determining who the last legal owner of the gun was. Determining that faster, and with less resources, is objectively a benefit.



I believe it's absolutely realistic to occur in certain cases. Routinely? No. But criminals, and people in general, are hardly renowned for always thinking logically or with great forethought. People, in general, sometimes do poor decisions in crisis situations.

Even if it happens rarely there is some objective benefit from it. Unless you're suggesting that 100% never happens?

Again, as I said in a later post....if the question is "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration that is substantial?" then you get a different answer. If the question is "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration that overrides the potential negatives?" then you get a different answer. If the question is "Even if there are benefits, should we do gun registration?" you'd get a different answer.

But the questoin seems to simply be "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration".

Looking at it objectively, and without a preconcieved bias one way or another or an irrational fear of "OMG! If I say something that isn't 100% lock step in line with the most extreme of pro-gun people then I must be anti-gun!", I can honestly say that yes....I can see some objective benefits to gun registration.

as I noted, 24 years as a federal LEO-never heard of a single case of registration solving a crime
Hawaii has had complete registration (and of course complete means criminals ignore it) and it has had no value

 

[Zyphlin]

Career criminals will. Crimes of passion and such won't of course. But a serial number on a gun doesn't do much to tell you who committed a crime anyways. Yeah, it may lead a cop to the owner of a gun, but that's it.

I never claimed that a serial number on a gun, or a gun being registered, will tell you exaclty who committed a crime. That's a strawman.

I've suggested that knowing who was the last legal owner of a gun can help provide evidence and information to determine who committed a later crime.

Something that provides some level of evidence or assistance to determining the perpetrator of a crime is a benefit.

 

[TurtleDude]

No they do not. An INFRINGEMENT is something that can be on any level in any degree no matter how large or how small or how significant or how minor. To pretend that the government cannot put forth even the most minor regulation because it is an INFRINGEMENT - and that is the only logical conclusion if one accepts the INFRINGEMENTS language - is ridiculous in the extreme as it would deny the government even the most minor ability to regulate the most minor of things associated with guns or any arms at all including the most powerful that extend far far beyond mere guns. Remember the Amendment does not use the term guns or firearms but arms which can include any weapon.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is far more definitive and far more decisive showing an action that actually negates the right to keep and bear arms and deprive the citizen of exercising it.

Of course, this incremental distinction is lost since the gun lobby has been highly successful in brainwashing their supporters into thinking that the two terms are the same thing when they clearly are not at all the same thing.

Again, some here wish the Constitution said something different than what it actually does but pretending and lying about it does not change the wording or its meaning.

well GIVEN THE FOUNDERS PENNED NO LANGUAGE in the main BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION GRANTING the federal government ANY POWER to regulate arms, your amazement that the SECOND A could have been designed to prevent ALL INFRINGEMENTS IS MISPLACED

your argument would have perhaps some merit if there was language in the main body of the USC delegating suc power.

and why do you constantly claim pro rights advocates are brainwashed when their interpretation is based on the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the document rather than some dishonest quibbling that the anti gun extremists engage in (like claiming that the plain words Shall not be infringed allows infringements that are never authorized in the plain language of the main constitution?)

 

[TurtleDude]

I never claimed that a serial number on a gun, or a gun being registered, will tell you exaclty who committed a crime. That's a strawman.

I've suggested that knowing who was the last legal owner of a gun can help provide evidence and information to determine who committed a later crime.

Something that provides some level of evidence or assistance to determining the perpetrator of a crime is a benefit.

again, your speculation has no corresponding reality at least from what I have seen. people do use guns they bought at retail to commit crimes. In almost ever case where that happened the crime was suicide or negligent homicide

 

[LaMidRighter]

I already addressed this.

IF every person reported a gun stolen, then yes there would be no objective benefit.

However, every person doesn't report a gun stolen. And not just for nefarious reasons. Negligence, laziness, ignorance of the requirement could all contributed to a reason why someone would not report a gun stolen.

In the event that a gun was stolen or lost and then was used in a crime, but the person didn't report it stolen, then registration would potentially allow LEO's to more easily learn this fact and possibly gain information that could help with the investigation into the current crime at hand.

Negative. If a person forgot to update with the registry or just decided not to because they don't like being in a database you lose time. IOW, you go chasing old addresses when all you had to do was take the SN, put it in the crime reporting system, and do the job correctly from the start. Second, the owner wasn't necessarily the user, the owner may not even know their firearm was borrowed or stolen. Third, it is not a requirement in most areas to report a firearm theft, it's simply a good idea. Registration isn't desired by politicians and gun control groups because it's an effective tool for crime prevention but because it would make rounding owners up easy.

Already addressed as well. Registration would provide a much more expedited method of determining who the last legal owner of the gun was. Determining that faster, and with less resources, is objectively a benefit.

How so? Instead of gathering proper evidence you'll simply be chasing the owner down, while that happens the trail can get cold towards the actual criminal. A registry only helps if you are lucky enough that the person who owned the gun was the user and didn't alter the SN to begin with.

I believe it's absolutely realistic to occur in certain cases. Routinely? No. But criminals, and people in general, are hardly renowned for always thinking logically or with great forethought. People, in general, sometimes do poor decisions in crisis situations.

Most guns used were bought illegally, outside of the system, and tend to be cheap and "disposable". This is for a reason, because the investment in a criminal tool can't be more than the take, it has to be something that can be thrown away. A registry is a laughing stock to folks who know this subject because those very same weapons will never show up on one.

Even if it happens rarely there is some objective benefit from it. Unless you're suggesting that 100% never happens?

"Some" benefit, I am not going to register my guns to make someone happy because they got "some" little benefit, and honestly, that is arguable from the get go.

Again, as I said in a later post....if the question is "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration that is substantial?" then you get a different answer. If the question is "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration that overrides the potential negatives?" then you get a different answer. If the question is "Even if there are benefits, should we do gun registration?" you'd get a different answer.

But the questoin seems to simply be "Is there any objective benefit of gun registration".

Looking at it objectively, and without a preconcieved bias one way or another or an irrational fear of "OMG! If I say something that isn't 100% lock step in line with the most extreme of pro-gun people then I must be anti-gun!", I can honestly say that yes....I can see some objective benefits to gun registration.

Registry law is a net negative, and a non-starter.

 

[Zyphlin]

as I noted, 24 years as a federal LEO-never heard of a single case of registration solving a crime

I never suggested registration alone would solve a case. Also, throwing out your PERSONAL experience in the matter hardly is proof of a univeresal truth of the notion across all spectrum of experience.

Show me proof or significant evidence beyond your personal experience and opinion that 100% of guns that are stolen are reported or that 100% of guns used in crime are untracable.

Unless that can be shown, there is the potential for a situation where a gun is stolen but is not reported stolen, and said gun is used in a crime and discarded in a way that the serial number is in tact.

In a situation where there is a gun registry akin to a car registry/titling process, officers would be able to quickly see who the last legal owner is and speak with him...becoming made aware that it was stolen, which could potentially lead to other evidence that could help with the later case.

In a situation where there isn't a gun registry, officers would at best have to expend time and resources to go back to the manufacturer, track to what store front (if any) the firearm was sent, tracked to see who purchased the gun at said storefront (if there's even a useful record of that), then continue to track from owner to owner until they arrived at the last legal owner. Only then would they get to the same point as I described in the first situation.

The second situation requires more time, energy, and resources on the part of law enforcement...things that can be crucial in a case, not to mention are uses of tax payer funds. There is an objective benefit to situation one.

Unless it can be said with 100% certainty that 100% of stolen guns are reported, and 100% of guns used in crimes are unidentifiable, then there is most assuredly SOME benefit that could be had from registration.

 

[TurtleDude]

I never suggested registration alone would solve a case. Also, throwing out your PERSONAL experience in the matter hardly is proof of a univeresal truth of the notion across all spectrum of experience.

Show me proof or significant evidence beyond your personal experience and opinion that 100% of guns that are stolen are reported or that 100% of guns used in crime are untracable.

Unless that can be shown, there is the potential for a situation where a gun is stolen but is not reported stolen, and said gun is used in a crime and discarded in a way that the serial number is in tact.

In a situation where there is a gun registry akin to a car registry/titling process, officers would be able to quickly see who the last legal owner is and speak with him...becoming made aware that it was stolen, which could potentially lead to other evidence that could help with the later case.

In a situation where there isn't a gun registry, officers would at best have to expend time and resources to go back to the manufacturer, track to what store front (if any) the firearm was sent, tracked to see who purchased the gun at said storefront (if there's even a useful record of that), then continue to track from owner to owner until they arrived at the last legal owner. Only then would they get to the same point as I described in the first situation.

The second situation requires more time, energy, and resources on the part of law enforcement...things that can be crucial in a case, not to mention are uses of tax payer funds. There is an objective benefit to situation one.

Unless it can be said with 100% certainty that 100% of stolen guns are reported, and 100% of guns used in crimes are unidentifiable, then there is most assuredly SOME benefit that could be had from registration.

LMR's response pretty much is the bottom line.