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

[Zyphlin]

Are you making the assumption a registry is the only way of obtaining information?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that it would be one way to do so. And, compared to the other ways that have been described in this thread (going to the manufacturer, finding out what store front recieved the firearm, checking with the storefront to see who purchased the firearm, checking with that person to see if THEY legally sold the firearm to someone else, etc) it would be a quicker method in some cases which would be beneficial.

Are you under an assumption that multiple ways to do something removes the benefit of each?

If there are two different paths for ways for you to go home...one is faster, one is less miles....does the fact you primarily use one method mean the benefit of the other simply doesn't exist?

A registry holds at best the information on the supposed current owner

A registry would hold information on the last legal owner...yes, that's what I've claimed the entire thread.

Information which is not held in a firearm registry.

I've never claimed that the information was held in the registry, but glad to see another zealotous gun advocate attacking strawmen rather than what I actually say.

The information isn't held in the registry. However, the registry would allow the officers to quickly, and with minimal effort or resources on their part, determine the last legal owner of the firearm. In the scenario I described, by identifying that individual they would be able to speak with him and potentially find additional useful information. Information they would either 1) not get if they didn't have a way to track down the person or 2) would get through the use of far more time and resources. As such, it'd provide a benefit in that investigation scenario.

OK under what circumstances was the gun discarded at the scene of the crime? Or could reasonable be expected to have been discarded. How many criminals do you think there are that will leave a gun that can be traced back to them at the scene of a crime? Just a rough estimate. Would you bet that this was the only evidence they left?

I would doubt it'd be the only evidence they left, but every bit of evidence in an investigation is a benefit to that investigation. Two pieces of evidence is better than one. Three pieces of evidence is better than two. Etc. As to how often it would happen? I don't know. But given the prepensity for FAR greater stupidity on the count of some criminals, I'd wager that the likelihood of it happening is greater than one time.

And even if it only occured in that SPECIFIC situation one time...it would still provide a BENEFIT that one time.

Did you consider that finding anyone via a gun is not going to be able to show they used it to commit the crime?

I don't know. Perhaps you can answer that based on the fact I've stated repeatedly that it would simply be additional evidence to an investigation, and not some kind of absolute proof of any particular crime.

The gun has a make and serial number it is traceable to the point of sale.

Correct. And going to the point of sale, seeing if they have a record of who they sold it to, and then checking with that person to see if they've legally sold it to anyone else would take longer.

You're trying to find the last known legal gun owner.

Using serial numbers:
1. Use serial number to determine point of sale location
2. Contact point of sale location and see if they have the a record of who they sold it to
3a. If they have said record, contact that person and see if the were the last legal owner or if they sold it legally to someone else
3b. If they did legally sell it to someone else, repeate step 3a until you get to the last legal owner.

Using registery
1. Use serial number to determine the last legal owner
2. Contact that person

As LMR has REPEATEDLY stated, the more time that passes the colder a case gets. As well, law enforcement functions on tax payer dime. The less time they spend on any given task is the less tax payer money being wasted. Compared to the method you're stating, there are instances where there would unquestionably be a benefit to going about it via a registry.

I'm not sure what percentage of crimes this would even impact let alone give any help to but I am willing to bet it is very very few

Very very few is greater than 0%. If it provides a benefit even once, it provides a benefit. Which was the question.

If the questoin was "Name a significantly occuring objective benefit of gun registration" you'd possibly have an argument.

Every single gun registry in the world is riddled with errors.

Irrelevant. It's hillarious how people can't help but point out negatives as if a negative somehow means a positive doesn't exist.

The question is not whether the negetives of a registry override any benefits.

The question is simply IF there is ANY benefit.

 

[TurtleDude]

It was a question in response to your claim. Can you answer it? Which firearms were confiscated and why?

people in California and NY and NJ who owned guns that they registered were told to remove said weapons from the state or face confiscation once the weapons were declared illegal

 

[Zyphlin]

People need to look to the failure of other registries as a crime tool.

They don't need to look for that to see if there is ANY benefit to their existance, because failures...unless they exist 100% of the time in 100% of the ways...do not invalidate a benefit from existance. It simply makes a benefit less valuable or worth while.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not at all. I'm suggesting that it would be one way to do so. And, compared to the other ways that have been described in this thread (going to the manufacturer, finding out what store front recieved the firearm, checking with the storefront to see who purchased the firearm, checking with that person to see if THEY legally sold the firearm to someone else, etc) it would be a quicker method in some cases which would be beneficial.

Are you under an assumption that multiple ways to do something removes the benefit of each?

If there are two different paths for ways for you to go home...one is faster, one is less miles....does the fact you primarily use one method mean the benefit of the other simply doesn't exist?



A registry would hold information on the last legal owner...yes, that's what I've claimed the entire thread.



I've never claimed that the information was held in the registry, but glad to see another zealotous gun advocate attacking strawmen rather than what I actually say.

The information isn't held in the registry. However, the registry would allow the officers to quickly, and with minimal effort or resources on their part, determine the last legal owner of the firearm. In the scenario I described, by identifying that individual they would be able to speak with him and potentially find additional useful information. Information they would either 1) not get if they didn't have a way to track down the person or 2) would get through the use of far more time and resources. As such, it'd provide a benefit in that investigation scenario.



I would doubt it'd be the only evidence they left, but every bit of evidence in an investigation is a benefit to that investigation. Two pieces of evidence is better than one. Three pieces of evidence is better than two. Etc. As to how often it would happen? I don't know. But given the prepensity for FAR greater stupidity on the count of some criminals, I'd wager that the likelihood of it happening is greater than one time.

And even if it only occured in that SPECIFIC situation one time...it would still provide a BENEFIT that one time.



I don't know. Perhaps you can answer that based on the fact I've stated repeatedly that it would simply be additional evidence to an investigation, and not some kind of absolute proof of any particular crime.



Correct. And going to the point of sale, seeing if they have a record of who they sold it to, and then checking with that person to see if they've legally sold it to anyone else would take longer.

You're trying to find the last known legal gun owner.

Using serial numbers:
1. Use serial number to determine point of sale location
2. Contact point of sale location and see if they have the a record of who they sold it to
3a. If they have said record, contact that person and see if the were the last legal owner or if they sold it legally to someone else
3b. If they did legally sell it to someone else, repeate step 3a until you get to the last legal owner.

Using registery
1. Use serial number to determine the last legal owner
2. Contact that person

As LMR has REPEATEDLY stated, the more time that passes the colder a case gets. As well, law enforcement functions on tax payer dime. The less time they spend on any given task is the less tax payer money being wasted. Compared to the method you're stating, there are instances where there would unquestionably be a benefit to going about it via a registry.



Very very few is greater than 0%. If it provides a benefit even once, it provides a benefit. Which was the question.

If the questoin was "Name a significantly occuring objective benefit of gun registration" you'd possibly have an argument.



Irrelevant. It's hillarious how people can't help but point out negatives as if a negative somehow means a positive doesn't exist.

The question is not whether the negetives of a registry override any benefits.

The question is simply IF there is ANY benefit.

if those benefits actually existed, why has a gun registry in Hawaii failed to decrease crime?

 

[Zyphlin]

if those benefits actually existed, why has a gun registry in Hawaii failed to decrease crime?

Hmm. Am I shocked that once again a poster in this thread uses the exact same tired argument they've used before, and I've answered before, obviously showing they don't bother to read peoples posts but instead just attempt to debate the paranoid anti-gun boogeyman they imagine in their head anytime someone doesn't speak in lock step with them? No, no I'm not.

1. I already stated, decreasing crime is not the only way a "Benefit" could be had. Crime as a whole could INCREASE, but if it helped solve a single crime then it provided at least SOME benefit in that very narrow sense. And as your subject asks, it's for ANY benefit. ANY at all.

2. As I've already stated repeatedly, something can provide a benefit in a narrow (or even broad) sense while still carrying a net negative for a variety of reasons

The benefit of unprotected sex is that it feels good. The fact that as we learn more about the dangers of STD's and the potential risks of pregnancy, the amount of unprotected sex may decline. That decline doesn't magically mean the benefit of it feeling good vanishes. It simply means that other factors relating to it outweigh the benefit.

 

[Federalist]

The mentally deficient deserve special help when their cognitive powers are not in evidence.

What is the purpose/function of a registry?

What is the result of non-compliance?

Are you going to tell me a moron could not have figured that out?

Registries allow the government to connect guns to people. They allow the government to find the person who owns a particular gun, to find any person who has a gun. This would greatly facilitate confiscation.

 

[haymarket]

the real duh comes from those who dishonestly claim (like the incredibly dishonest patron saint of socialists and statists-FDR) that the commerce clause was a grant of power to the federal government to regulate arms

That pesky Constitution seems to get in the way of your wants and desires my friend. Your embracing of a phony Constitution to suit your own ideology reminds me of Francois de la Rochefoucauld who wrote... "we are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to others that in the end we become disguised to ourselves." Perverting the Constitution takes it toll and you no longer can even recognize it and what it says or even tell the difference. As both you and I have discussed previously - one does NOT need the commerce clause to regulate firearms. Others selected that path but there is more than one way to arrive at the same destination.

 

[Federalist]

That pesky Constitution seems to get in the way of your wants and desires my friend. Your embracing of a phony Constitution to suit your own ideology reminds me of Francois de la Rochefoucauld who wrote... "we are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to others that in the end we become disguised to ourselves." Perverting the Constitution takes it toll and you no longer can even recognize it and what it says or even tell the difference. As both you and I have discussed previously - one does NOT need the commerce clause to regulate firearms. Others selected that path but there is more than one way to arrive at the same destination.

Yes, the constitution clearly MANDATES that the federal government restrict the ability of the people to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. <Now I roll my eyes>

...or, the toadies and sycophants of a tyrannical government wish to squeeze the square peg of citizen disarmament into the round hole of the constitution, in order to accomplish their nefarious ends.

 

[haymarket]

people in California and NY and NJ who owned guns that they registered were told to remove said weapons from the state or face confiscation once the weapons were declared illegal

aah... so you will answer when others dare not. Excellent Turtle... most excellent.

So what is wrong with not allowing people to have a small number of illegal things when there are a thousand times more legal things which can satisfy and fulfill the exercise of the right?

Illegal weapons can indeed be confiscated and the right to keep and bear arms is still being exercised in those states without problem.

And that reality shows that your boogeyman of 'registration begats confiscation which begats denial of gun ownership and your rights' is simply poppycock which does not hold up to factual analysis.

 

[haymarket]

Yes, the constitution clearly MANDATES that the federal government restrict the ability of the people to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. <Now I roll my eyes>

...or, the toadies and sycophants of a tyrannical government wish to squeeze the square peg of citizen disarmament into the round hole of the constitution, in order to accomplish their nefarious ends.

Apparently you also have a phony Constitution in your desk drawer also. Your phony strawman of MANDATE is irrelevant to what the Constitution ALLOWS the government to do. Of course, you know this well.... very well since we have discussed it previously.

It is sad and telling of your motives when you have to invent new language in a phony Constitution to justify your views. The word MANDATE is your own creation to set the bar where it clearly has no place in the real Constitution - Article I listing what powers Congress SHALL HAVE.

 

[Federalist]

Apparently you also have a phony Constitution in your desk drawer also. Your phony strawman of MANDATE is irrelevant to what the Constitution ALLOWS the government to do. Of course, you know this well.... very well since we have discussed it previously.

It is sad and telling of your motives when you have to invent new language in a phony Constitution to justify your views. The word MANDATE is your own creation to set the bar where it clearly has no place in the real Constitution - Article I listing what powers Congress SHALL HAVE.

Obviously the constitution doesn't MANDATE that the federal government restrict the ability of the people to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. Perhaps you missed where I said I was rolling my eyes.

Now, whether or not it PERMITS this is up for debate, but the point is, those who cherish liberty must now debate the boot licking toadies and sycophants of a government hell bent on disarming the American people. These enemies of liberty wish to use the force of government to strip their fellow man of the ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

Like all tyrants, they must be resisted.

 

[haymarket]

Obviously the constitution doesn't MANDATE that the federal government restrict the ability of the people to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. Perhaps you missed where I said I was rolling my eyes.

Now, whether or not it PERMITS this is up for debate, but the point is, those who cherish liberty must now debate the boot licking toadies and sycophants of a government hell bent on disarming the American people. These enemies of liberty wish to use the force of government to strip their fellow man of the ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

Like all tyrants, they must be resisted.

A graduate of the exclusive Von Mises Institute special hyperbole course I see.

 

[Federalist]

A graduate of the exclusive Von Mises Institute special hyperbole course I see.

A vapid non-response I see.

 

[LaMidRighter]

They don't need to look for that to see if there is ANY benefit to their existance, because failures...unless they exist 100% of the time in 100% of the ways...do not invalidate a benefit from existance. It simply makes a benefit less valuable or worth while.

There is no benefit, an officer can already trace a gun via the serial number.

 

[jaeger19]

aah... so you will answer when others dare not. Excellent Turtle... most excellent.

So what is wrong with not allowing people to have a small number of illegal things when there are a thousand times more legal things which can satisfy and fulfill the exercise of the right?

Illegal weapons can indeed be confiscated and the right to keep and bear arms is still being exercised in those states without problem.

And that reality shows that your boogeyman of 'registration begats confiscation which begats denial of gun ownership and your rights' is simply poppycock which does not hold up to factual analysis.

First.. you totally fail on the idea that "there are a thousand times more legal things which can satisfy and fulfill the exercise of that right"

That's like saying.. hey.. its okay that people were enslaved as long as they could escape to states where they weren't enslaved..

Its like saying that its fine that black folks had to give up their front seat on the bus for a white person by law.. because they had the right to a seat..

Its like saying that its fine that the government can tell you that you can't marry this consenting adult because they are of the same sex, or of a different race... because there are so many other people that you CAN legally marry...

GIANT FAIL on your part.

As far as a boogeyman.. not a boogey man.. its real. its been done... NEW YORK had officers go door to door and search houses using gun registration lists to be sure that the folks did not have an now illegal firearm.

another big fail on your part.

 

[Federalist]

First.. you totally fail on the idea that "there are a thousand times more legal things which can satisfy and fulfill the exercise of that right"

That's like saying.. hey.. its okay that people were enslaved as long as they could escape to states where they weren't enslaved..

Its like saying that its fine that black folks had to give up their front seat on the bus for a white person by law.. because they had the right to a seat..

Its like saying that its fine that the government can tell you that you can't marry this consenting adult because they are of the same sex, or of a different race... because there are so many other people that you CAN legally marry...

GIANT FAIL on your part.

As far as a boogeyman.. not a boogey man.. its real. its been done... NEW YORK had officers go door to door and search houses using gun registration lists to be sure that the folks did not have an now illegal firearm.

another big fail on your part.

Queue the: "This is this; this isn't that" tripe...

 

[LaMidRighter]

Hmm. Am I shocked that once again a poster in this thread uses the exact same tired argument they've used before, and I've answered before, obviously showing they don't bother to read peoples posts but instead just attempt to debate the paranoid anti-gun boogeyman they imagine in their head anytime someone doesn't speak in lock step with them? No, no I'm not.

1. I already stated, decreasing crime is not the only way a "Benefit" could be had. Crime as a whole could INCREASE, but if it helped solve a single crime then it provided at least SOME benefit in that very narrow sense. And as your subject asks, it's for ANY benefit. ANY at all.

2. As I've already stated repeatedly, something can provide a benefit in a narrow (or even broad) sense while still carrying a net negative for a variety of reasons

The benefit of unprotected sex is that it feels good. The fact that as we learn more about the dangers of STD's and the potential risks of pregnancy, the amount of unprotected sex may decline. That decline doesn't magically mean the benefit of it feeling good vanishes. It simply means that other factors relating to it outweigh the benefit.

Zyph, you are going on theory, and a theory with unequivocal proof that it doesn't work as advertised. We say it fails, you say "but it could work" to where we say, no, it's proven it doesn't, then you say "but it could". You are better than this type of argument, the registries have no plusses, the only "benefits" they have shown are to government officials who want to ban firearms and collect them(the property of others), the only proof of success is the extremely speculative opinions of people who have no current experience in the Law enforcement field such as chiefs of police, politicians, and left leaning social theorists.

 

[haymarket]

A vapid non-response I see.

Then you do not see at all... at least what is reality.

Go back and look over your post Federalist. The term OVER THE TOP HYPERBOLE would be an understatement.

 

[haymarket]

First.. you totally fail on the idea that "there are a thousand times more legal things which can satisfy and fulfill the exercise of that right"

another big fail on your part.

Oh? There isn't?

If we took one particular firearm out of a gun shop and left the thousands of others behind for sale to the citizenry - then what is wrong with my statement?

It seems that you just made an emotional response rather than a factual one and the fail is totally yours.

The New York citizens can and do obtain firearms to exercise their right. It is intact and being exercised right this very second and the removal of illegal items is irrelevant next to that reality.

That's like saying.. hey.. its okay that people were enslaved as long as they could escape to states where they weren't enslaved..

Its like saying that its fine that black folks had to give up their front seat on the bus for a white person by law.. because they had the right to a seat..

Its like saying that its fine that the government ca

Actually its not like anything other than what it is no matter how much you wish it were.

 

[haymarket]

Queue the: "This is this; this isn't that" tripe...

reality is "tripe " to you? :doh:shock: That explains a great deal about the positions you make. :roll:

 

[Federalist]

Then you do not see at all... at least what is reality.

Go back and look over your post Federalist. The term OVER THE TOP HYPERBOLE would be an understatement.

The constitution, according to you, allows but does not mandate that the federal government restrict the ability of the people to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. This much is obvious.

You want the ability of the people to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms to be restricted by the federal government, even though there is no requirement for such restriction.

You and your ilk are enemies of liberty

 

[Federalist]

reality is "tripe " to you? :doh:shock: That explains a great deal about the positions you make. :roll:

The results of insufficient abstract thinking skills are tripe to me.

 

[haymarket]

The constitution, according to you, allows but does not mandate that the federal government restrict the ability of the people to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. This much is obvious.

You want the ability of the people to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms to be restricted by the federal government, even though there is no requirement for such restriction.

You and your ilk are enemies of liberty

One cannot help but notice that no new material was discovered by you during your hiatus. Still pushing the old and tired and disproven saw about "freely acquire" despite you being roundly thrashed on that in the past. Someday you will have to post your own peculiar version of the Constitution since the one you keep quoting seems to be from the Twilight Zone as mine says nothing about "mandates" or "freely acquiring" anything.

 

[haymarket]

The results of insufficient abstract thinking skills are tripe to me.

What does abstract thinking have to do with something being what it is and not something else you want to pervert it to?

 

[Federalist]

One cannot help but notice that no new material was discovered by you during your hiatus. Still pushing the old and tired and disproven saw about "freely acquire" despite you being roundly thrashed on that in the past. Someday you will have to post your own peculiar version of the Constitution since the one you keep quoting seems to be from the Twilight Zone as mine says nothing about "mandates" or "freely acquiring" anything.

Quoting??? I'm not quoting anything.

I am simply pointing out that you wish to use the power of government to prevent the American people from freely acquiring, keeping, and bearing arms, even though the Constitution does not require this.

Thus, you and your ilk are enemies of liberty.