Gun that killed 3-year-old... (1 Viewer)

[Spanky267]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

Then what the hell do you hope to accomplish? There are 270 million guns out there now. 270 million dumb guns some of which are in the hands of stupid irresponsible owners. How do your "smart" guns solve that problem. How does your "safety feature" protect the kids of those idiots that think its okay to leave their loaded gun laying about? It doesnt and it wont. Yet you bring up collateral damage and saving kids. How the hell will simply mandating that all guns made after X date include your "safety feature" reduce gun crime if you arent addressing the 270 million pound elephant in the room?

You have talked about the tech and how intriguing it is. How it could save lives. Please lay out how you would implement such a regulation for the integration of this safety feature and what you would do about the 270 million guns already inexistence that dont have these features.

 

[Chaka]

So why is it bad if governments know if you own guns (state or fed)?

We all worried they gonna come take them away?

Force is not the method that the government uses to control you and your guns won't protect you from the actual means of control.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

Then what the hell do you hope to accomplish? There are 270 million guns out there now. 270 million dumb guns some of which are in the hands of stupid irresponsible owners. How do your "smart" guns solve that problem. How does your "safety feature" protect the kids of those idiots that think its okay to leave their loaded gun laying about? It doesnt and it wont. Yet you bring up collateral damage and saving kids. How the hell will simply mandating that all guns made after X date include your "safety feature" reduce gun crime if you arent addressing the 270 million pound elephant in the room?

You have talked about the tech and how intriguing it is. How it could save lives. Please lay out how you would implement such a regulation for the integration of this safety feature and what you would do about the 270 million guns already inexistence that dont have these features.

How many cars do you see on the road today without seat belts? None. This standard will work in the same way, age out older tech with new.

However you sidestepped my actual question so I will ask it again: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence?

I have answered all your questions. Many times. I have answered the question you ask at the end of this post several times as well. I think in return you should answer my question.

 

[Schlzm]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

Then what the hell do you hope to accomplish? There are 270 million guns out there now. 270 million dumb guns some of which are in the hands of stupid irresponsible owners. How do your "smart" guns solve that problem. How does your "safety feature" protect the kids of those idiots that think its okay to leave their loaded gun laying about? It doesnt and it wont. Yet you bring up collateral damage and saving kids. How the hell will simply mandating that all guns made after X date include your "safety feature" reduce gun crime if you arent addressing the 270 million pound elephant in the room?You have talked about the tech and how intriguing it is. How it could save lives. Please lay out how you would implement such a regulation for the integration of this safety feature and what you would do about the 270 million guns already inexistence that dont have these features.

How many cars do you see on the road today without seat belts? None. This standard will work in the same way, age out older tech with new.However you sidestepped my actual question so I will ask it again: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence?

I have answered all your questions. Many times. I have answered the question you ask at the end of this post several times as well. I think in return you should answer my question.

You once again show your ignorence on the subject unless you are really going long-term to reach your goals, like 100 years long term. Schlzm

 

[The Commish]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

Then what the hell do you hope to accomplish? There are 270 million guns out there now. 270 million dumb guns some of which are in the hands of stupid irresponsible owners. How do your "smart" guns solve that problem. How does your "safety feature" protect the kids of those idiots that think its okay to leave their loaded gun laying about? It doesnt and it wont. Yet you bring up collateral damage and saving kids. How the hell will simply mandating that all guns made after X date include your "safety feature" reduce gun crime if you arent addressing the 270 million pound elephant in the room?You have talked about the tech and how intriguing it is. How it could save lives. Please lay out how you would implement such a regulation for the integration of this safety feature and what you would do about the 270 million guns already inexistence that dont have these features.

How many cars do you see on the road today without seat belts? None. This standard will work in the same way, age out older tech with new.However you sidestepped my actual question so I will ask it again: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence?

I have answered all your questions. Many times. I have answered the question you ask at the end of this post several times as well. I think in return you should answer my question.

You once again show your ignorence on the subject unless you are really going long-term to reach your goals, like 100 years long term.Schlzm

What specifically do you think I am ignorant of?

 

[timschochet]

As the Commish writes, it doesn't have to be a federal registration. Each state could have their own databank, just as they do with the DMV. Other states or the FBI could access the databank upon request.

Is there really any one who believes, honestly, that this wouldn't make a difference in fighting crime? Police could trace guns back to their original purchaser, and from them determine how they were illegally used/sold. Prosecution of just a few illegal sales/transfers would severely reduce the availability of these weapons to the bad guys. Against this, you have the fear that registration could be used in the future to seize guns- a fear that I for one find to be entirely unreasonable.

Admittedly, registration has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. It will not protect any child from picking up a gun. But according to most police experts, it will reduce gun violence.

 

[Chaka]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

 

[Chaka]

As the Commish writes, it doesn't have to be a federal registration. Each state could have their own databank, just as they do with the DMV. Other states or the FBI could access the databank upon request.

Is there really any one who believes, honestly, that this wouldn't make a difference in fighting crime? Police could trace guns back to their original purchaser, and from them determine how they were illegally used/sold. Prosecution of just a few illegal sales/transfers would severely reduce the availability of these weapons to the bad guys. Against this, you have the fear that registration could be used in the future to seize guns- a fear that I for one find to be entirely unreasonable.

Admittedly, registration has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. It will not protect any child from picking up a gun. But according to most police experts, it will reduce gun violence.

That is because it IS entirely unreasonable and rooted in paranoia that Big Brother is coming for them.

The sad part is that, in a sense, BB is coming for them just not in any form that their guns will protect them from.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

Then what the hell do you hope to accomplish?

Just to provide a simple answer since no one seems to be able to get this: my hope is that it reduces gun violence over a long period of time. I think eradicating all gun violence is unachievable in this country.

 

[Schlzm]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

Then what the hell do you hope to accomplish?

Just to provide a simple answer since no one seems to be able to get this: my hope is that it reduces gun violence over a long period of time. I think eradicating all gun violence is unachievable in this country.

Fair enough and admirable long term goal. Schlzm

 

[Spanky267]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

Then what the hell do you hope to accomplish? There are 270 million guns out there now. 270 million dumb guns some of which are in the hands of stupid irresponsible owners. How do your "smart" guns solve that problem. How does your "safety feature" protect the kids of those idiots that think its okay to leave their loaded gun laying about? It doesnt and it wont. Yet you bring up collateral damage and saving kids. How the hell will simply mandating that all guns made after X date include your "safety feature" reduce gun crime if you arent addressing the 270 million pound elephant in the room?

You have talked about the tech and how intriguing it is. How it could save lives. Please lay out how you would implement such a regulation for the integration of this safety feature and what you would do about the 270 million guns already inexistence that dont have these features.

How many cars do you see on the road today without seat belts? None. This standard will work in the same way, age out older tech with new.

However you sidestepped my actual question so I will ask it again: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence?

I have answered all your questions. Many times. I have answered the question you ask at the end of this post several times as well. I think in return you should answer my question.

I see cars on the road without seatbelts frequently. I learned to drive in a car with no seatbelts and I was born in the 70's.

This will not even dramatically reduce gun violence. I know it wont end it. Hyperbole on my part.

The problem is that guns typically dont break and people who own them take care of them. They are very simple mechanical devices. There are muskets from the revolutionary war that are still capable of being fired. The 270 million guns we have now wont evaporate. They wont breakdown like a car and be to expensive to fix. I just looked on MidwayUSA and intermal parts like the firing pin and springs are all less than $50 and are mostly in the $10 or less range. The glock someone buys today will still be around in 50, 75 or 100 years. Plus its mostly polymer so its not going to rust away either.

 

[Spanky267]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

 

[The Commish]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

But don't automate it because then it will take a couple of seconds?? This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. It's already there, just not labeled a "registry".

 

[Spanky267]

As the Commish writes, it doesn't have to be a federal registration. Each state could have their own databank, just as they do with the DMV. Other states or the FBI could access the databank upon request.

Is there really any one who believes, honestly, that this wouldn't make a difference in fighting crime? Police could trace guns back to their original purchaser, and from them determine how they were illegally used/sold. Prosecution of just a few illegal sales/transfers would severely reduce the availability of these weapons to the bad guys. Against this, you have the fear that registration could be used in the future to seize guns- a fear that I for one find to be entirely unreasonable.

Admittedly, registration has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. It will not protect any child from picking up a gun. But according to most police experts, it will reduce gun violence.

Can you point me to the police "experts" that say gun registration will reduce crime? I've seen surveys of rank and file officers and they are overwhelmingly opposed to most gun control measures. The only thing they seem to favor is gun safety classes with the purchase of a new gun.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

 

[Spanky267]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

Chaka, how can you make the assertion in bold? Gun manufacturers do track the wholesalers and retailers that they send guns to. They know which serial numbers when to which dealers. Those dealers then track who they sold the gun to. Where the trail may go cold is after the first end user, if he doesnt sell it back to a licensed dealer.

 

[Spanky267]

Clifford

My answer to question 1 is that guns should be treated as a special class of products since they have a special place in our society.

My answer to question 2 is that saving lives, while noble and worthwhile is not an exercise worth abrogating our constitutional rights over.

Would you give up the protections afforded to you in the 4th and 5th amendments if it saved lives? Would you allow the government to quarter soldiers in your home against your will if it saved lives? Would you allow the police to search homes without a warrant if it saved lives? Would you give up the right to not self incriminate if it saved lives?

I agree with you that the tech will continue to improve. I just dont think its something like this should be funded by the federal goivernment or mandated to be developed by the federal government. It has less to do with guns and more about what I believe the federal government should and shouldnt be doing.

If your hypothetical scenario were to be born out in testing I think it would be great. The gun should also be subjected to extreme temperatures, water, ice and sand. If it functions after being subjected to all of those elements that is terrific. Would I personally purchase one? No. I'd rather not be dependent on electronics in a gun, no matter how reliable, for it to fire. Others may want this and that is just fine. I prefer the mechanical features that make current guns robust and reliable. I dont want anyone to be denied the opportunity to purchase a gun with this tech in it if they so choose. I just dont want to be forced to buy it if I dont want it. i dont know if you know it or not but their are guys who prefer black powder muzzle loading rifles to more modern cased cartridge firing rifles. There are shooters who prefer the simplicity and sturdy reliability of revolvers to semi automatic pistols. There are guys who like guns made entirely of forged steel as opposed to the polymers found in many semi auto pistols. As this tech develops there will be people who prefer a "smart" gun to a "dumb" one. And there will be others who forgo the modernity of the smart gun for the perceived reliability and simplicity of the old dumb guns.

This is an awesome post.

Bolded a few points I loved in particular.

I'd like to add that I find the wretches who are part of the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally reprehensible and their actions dispicable. But while I dont condone their speech. They have a right to exercise that speech as long as it doesnt hurt or interfere with others.

This would be a great argument if the federal government were imposing a safety standard that harmed the effectiveness of guns in a significant way.Your 2nd amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. The case icon cited apparently adds to that that nothing can be imposed that would prevent the owner from using the gun for self-defense.

What I am proposing would do neither. But I'm done repeating myself on this score. Seems you have successfully conflated this safety measure with gun control, which is the exact tactic that has been used to discourage funding of the technology and slowed development.

Seems like if you gave a #### about the collateral damage your right causes you would want something a little stronger than optional safety settings. Personally I want to protect the child of the stupid irresponsible gun owner. I don't think having ####ty parents should be a death sentence.

But whatever, this country is ####ed on this issue.

It would prevent me from protecting myself in the "safety feature" malfunctioned and prevented the gun from firing. This issue and gun control are two seperate debates. I am quite capable of distinguishing the two. I dont think that government should mandate an electronic safety feature on a gun. Bring the product to market. I am sure there will be some people who will purchase it. I will not be among them.I want to protect the child of the stupid, irresponsible gun owner too. But tell me how you do that when 270 million guns are already in American homes? Its a sad reality that even if you impose this "safety feature" it wont stop accidental deaths entirely. You'd have to replace every gun in America to do that and then hope that the gun owner didnt add the child as an authorized user. I know its unlikely in the case of those under 10 years old. But there are kids 10 and up who die in accidental shootings.

There is collateral damage in the exercise of all of our rights. Murderers go free because the prosecution botches a case and there is no second bite of the apple. Would you like to see us curtail the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause? That way we could get these murderers?

This is a sanity check for me: why do you keep repeating that this will not end all gun violence? I know this, everyone knows this, and it has been acknowledged several times in this thread.

Then what the hell do you hope to accomplish?

Just to provide a simple answer since no one seems to be able to get this: my hope is that it reduces gun violence over a long period of time. I think eradicating all gun violence is unachievable in this country.

Fair enough and admirable long term goal.Schlzm

agreed.

 

[Spanky267]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

But don't automate it because then it will take a couple of seconds?? This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. It's already there, just not labeled a "registry".

Right and its only accessible if there is a crime. I cant say the same if there were a database in the possession of the government. Look how the IRS handled the 501C3 applications.

 

[Chaka]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

Chaka, how can you make the assertion in bold? Gun manufacturers do track the wholesalers and retailers that they send guns to. They know which serial numbers when to which dealers. Those dealers then track who they sold the gun to. Where the trail may go cold is after the first end user, if he doesnt sell it back to a licensed dealer.

The means exists but they are not nearly as efficient as you are making them out to be.

I am also surprised how you are so casually glossing over the secondary/used market.

Link

 

[Chaka]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

In some instances you are correct but by and large it takes a lot more than a couple phone calls when trying to trace a weapon. And even then it only applies to the original purchaser.

 

[The Commish]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

But don't automate it because then it will take a couple of seconds?? This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. It's already there, just not labeled a "registry".

Right and its only accessible if there is a crime. I cant say the same if there were a database in the possession of the government. Look how the IRS handled the 501C3 applications.

What are the measures in place today that allow you to believe the bold and why wouldn't they exist in an automated scenario? Also how is this anything similar to filing for a not-for-profit standing with the IRS?

 

[Spanky267]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

Chaka, how can you make the assertion in bold? Gun manufacturers do track the wholesalers and retailers that they send guns to. They know which serial numbers when to which dealers. Those dealers then track who they sold the gun to. Where the trail may go cold is after the first end user, if he doesnt sell it back to a licensed dealer.

The means exists but they are not nearly as efficient as you are making them out to be.

I am also surprised how you are so casually glossing over the secondary/used market.

Link

I'm not glossing over the secondary market. But guns can be traced using the method that I outlined. Just as a matter of principle I think the government has too much information as it is. It isnt the best steward of that information and it has abused that information in the past. I'd rather it have fewer databases etc.

 

[The Commish]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

Chaka, how can you make the assertion in bold? Gun manufacturers do track the wholesalers and retailers that they send guns to. They know which serial numbers when to which dealers. Those dealers then track who they sold the gun to. Where the trail may go cold is after the first end user, if he doesnt sell it back to a licensed dealer.

The means exists but they are not nearly as efficient as you are making them out to be.

I am also surprised how you are so casually glossing over the secondary/used market.

Link

I'm not glossing over the secondary market. But guns can be traced using the method that I outlined. Just as a matter of principle I think the government has too much information as it is. It isnt the best steward of that information and it has abused that information in the past. I'd rather it have fewer databases etc.

In my experience, the more we know the gov't is doing the better. Meaning, if we know they have the data, they are less likely to abuse it. I'm pretty confident our government knows what they want to know on a federal level. The symantics of a registry isn't going to change that, ever. I'm not trying to be snarky, but I have a hard time with your belief that they don't have the information you don't want them to have already. I think it's pretty naive given the age of technology we are living in.

 

[Spanky267]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

But don't automate it because then it will take a couple of seconds?? This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. It's already there, just not labeled a "registry".

Right and its only accessible if there is a crime. I cant say the same if there were a database in the possession of the government. Look how the IRS handled the 501C3 applications.

What are the measures in place today that allow you to believe the bold and why wouldn't they exist in an automated scenario? Also how is this anything similar to filing for a not-for-profit standing with the IRS?

I am not saying that they are the same, but look at how some of these 501c3 applicants were treated by the IRS. Many groups got a pass and got their tax exempt status immediately. Others were harrassed and harangued for months and years.

Here is what the Maryland Transportation Authority Police did to a man with a concealed carry permit from my home state of Florida. I guess state governments have access to the CCW databases of other states. What this officer did was a bureaucratic abuse of power. Its situations like these that I loathe.

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

 

[The Commish]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

But don't automate it because then it will take a couple of seconds?? This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. It's already there, just not labeled a "registry".

Right and its only accessible if there is a crime. I cant say the same if there were a database in the possession of the government. Look how the IRS handled the 501C3 applications.

What are the measures in place today that allow you to believe the bold and why wouldn't they exist in an automated scenario? Also how is this anything similar to filing for a not-for-profit standing with the IRS?

I am not saying that they are the same, but look at how some of these 501c3 applicants were treated by the IRS. Many groups got a pass and got their tax exempt status immediately. Others were harrassed and harangued for months and years.

Here is what the Maryland Transportation Authority Police did to a man with a concealed carry permit from my home state of Florida. I guess state governments have access to the CCW databases of other states. What this officer did was a bureaucratic abuse of power. Its situations like these that I loathe.

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

FWIW, I think it was a major "stretch" to assert that her not knowing the location of the gun was enough to do what they did. So, I share your disgust in the abuse of power. How often do you believe this happens?

ETA: I'm not sure I've said that abuse of power is acceptable. If you've gotten that impression, I apologize. Not my case. That's going to occur regardless of what the power is. You give them X, there's going to be someone who takes X+1.

 

[Chaka]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

Chaka, how can you make the assertion in bold? Gun manufacturers do track the wholesalers and retailers that they send guns to. They know which serial numbers when to which dealers. Those dealers then track who they sold the gun to. Where the trail may go cold is after the first end user, if he doesnt sell it back to a licensed dealer.

The means exists but they are not nearly as efficient as you are making them out to be.

I am also surprised how you are so casually glossing over the secondary/used market.

Link

I'm not glossing over the secondary market. But guns can be traced using the method that I outlined. Just as a matter of principle I think the government has too much information as it is. It isnt the best steward of that information and it has abused that information in the past. I'd rather it have fewer databases etc.

They can sometimes be traced and often with great difficulty.

When a gun is used in a crime it should be a quick and efficient point and click interface to a national database with immediate results. I don't understand how you could be opposed to this when you likely own guns because you worry about crime.

 

[Clifford]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

But don't automate it because then it will take a couple of seconds?? This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. It's already there, just not labeled a "registry".

Right and its only accessible if there is a crime. I cant say the same if there were a database in the possession of the government. Look how the IRS handled the 501C3 applications.

What are the measures in place today that allow you to believe the bold and why wouldn't they exist in an automated scenario? Also how is this anything similar to filing for a not-for-profit standing with the IRS?

I am not saying that they are the same, but look at how some of these 501c3 applicants were treated by the IRS. Many groups got a pass and got their tax exempt status immediately. Others were harrassed and harangued for months and years.

Here is what the Maryland Transportation Authority Police did to a man with a concealed carry permit from my home state of Florida. I guess state governments have access to the CCW databases of other states. What this officer did was a bureaucratic abuse of power. Its situations like these that I loathe.

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

This happens all the time. We have given our police license to abuse their powers by never prosecuting them when they step over the line. I have experienced this personally myself, plenty of times, about stuff other than guns. One time me and two friends were detained for two hours to riding too close to the yellow line.

If you want to get behind punitive measures that will show cops they can not trample people's rights with impunity, I'll be right there with you.

 

[Spanky267]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

But don't automate it because then it will take a couple of seconds?? This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. It's already there, just not labeled a "registry".

Right and its only accessible if there is a crime. I cant say the same if there were a database in the possession of the government. Look how the IRS handled the 501C3 applications.

What are the measures in place today that allow you to believe the bold and why wouldn't they exist in an automated scenario? Also how is this anything similar to filing for a not-for-profit standing with the IRS?

I am not saying that they are the same, but look at how some of these 501c3 applicants were treated by the IRS. Many groups got a pass and got their tax exempt status immediately. Others were harrassed and harangued for months and years.

Here is what the Maryland Transportation Authority Police did to a man with a concealed carry permit from my home state of Florida. I guess state governments have access to the CCW databases of other states. What this officer did was a bureaucratic abuse of power. Its situations like these that I loathe.

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

FWIW, I think it was a major "stretch" to assert that her not knowing the location of the gun was enough to do what they did. So, I share your disgust in the abuse of power. How often do you believe this happens?

ETA: I'm not sure I've said that abuse of power is acceptable. If you've gotten that impression, I apologize. Not my case. That's going to occur regardless of what the power is. You give them X, there's going to be someone who takes X+1.

I dont know how often it happens. I wish I did. I find it hard to believe that this is the only time its happened. The officer tailed an out of state vehicle that may or may not have been travelling over the speed limit. Driver says he wasnt. Ran vehicle tag through his system and pulled them over. Ran DL through system and there must have been some link between DL and CCW permit database. I think the linking of those databases is concerning and I am not surprised that they are linked.

 

[Spanky267]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

Chaka, how can you make the assertion in bold? Gun manufacturers do track the wholesalers and retailers that they send guns to. They know which serial numbers when to which dealers. Those dealers then track who they sold the gun to. Where the trail may go cold is after the first end user, if he doesnt sell it back to a licensed dealer.

The means exists but they are not nearly as efficient as you are making them out to be.

I am also surprised how you are so casually glossing over the secondary/used market.

Link

I'm not glossing over the secondary market. But guns can be traced using the method that I outlined. Just as a matter of principle I think the government has too much information as it is. It isnt the best steward of that information and it has abused that information in the past. I'd rather it have fewer databases etc.

They can sometimes be traced and often with great difficulty.

When a gun is used in a crime it should be a quick and efficient point and click interface to a national database with immediate results. I don't understand how you could be opposed to this when you likely own guns because you worry about crime.

Because like any searchable database it can be used for other than its intended purpose. Companies used to keep internal databases of their customers with contact info, demographic info and buying history. Then they found out they could make money selling those databases to other businesses. That data has been abused ever since. I dont see why a gun registry wouldnt be used in other than its intended purpose.

 

[The Commish]

I dont know how often it happens. I wish I did. I find it hard to believe that this is the only time its happened. The officer tailed an out of state vehicle that may or may not have been travelling over the speed limit. Driver says he wasnt. Ran vehicle tag through his system and pulled them over. Ran DL through system and there must have been some link between DL and CCW permit database. I think the linking of those databases is concerning and I am not surprised that they are linked.

Just my two cents but your concern seems to be misplaced. Your concern should be on the over zealous cop, not the availability of information. It bothers me greatly that people are so focused on the information when it's the PERSON taknig the action and stepping out of bounds. To me, that's the very definition of missing the forest for the trees. It's like blaming the wall you are ramming your head against for your headaches.

 

[Chaka]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

Chaka, how can you make the assertion in bold? Gun manufacturers do track the wholesalers and retailers that they send guns to. They know which serial numbers when to which dealers. Those dealers then track who they sold the gun to. Where the trail may go cold is after the first end user, if he doesnt sell it back to a licensed dealer.

The means exists but they are not nearly as efficient as you are making them out to be.

I am also surprised how you are so casually glossing over the secondary/used market.

Link

I'm not glossing over the secondary market. But guns can be traced using the method that I outlined. Just as a matter of principle I think the government has too much information as it is. It isnt the best steward of that information and it has abused that information in the past. I'd rather it have fewer databases etc.

They can sometimes be traced and often with great difficulty.

When a gun is used in a crime it should be a quick and efficient point and click interface to a national database with immediate results. I don't understand how you could be opposed to this when you likely own guns because you worry about crime.

Because like any searchable database it can be used for other than its intended purpose. Companies used to keep internal databases of their customers with contact info, demographic info and buying history. Then they found out they could make money selling those databases to other businesses. That data has been abused ever since. I dont see why a gun registry wouldnt be used in other than its intended purpose.

And so we end up with a haphazard, ineffective system and criminals remain on the streets.

How is that better?

Sorry if you don't want to be inconvenienced by marketing calls.

 

[Chaka]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

 

[[icon]]

. But according to most police experts, it will reduce gun violence.

Is that so?

Colorado Sheriff's association has released an official statement saying they are:

• Against bans of Assault Rifles, High Capacity magazines, etc,

• Against gun registration

• "Have seen firsthand" that increased gun legislation does not decrease gun crime

• Against hasty/kneejerk gun legislation

 

[Clifford]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

 

[timschochet]

. But according to most police experts, it will reduce gun violence.

Is that so?

Colorado Sheriff's association has released an official statement saying they are:

• Against bans of Assault Rifles, High Capacity magazines, etc,

• Against gun registration

• "Have seen firsthand" that increased gun legislation does not decrease gun crime

• Against hasty/kneejerk gun legislation

Well, that's why I used the word "most". There are always exceptions.

And I would add, while I'm sure these guys may "have seen firsthand" that some sort of increased gun legislation does not decrease gun crime, they couldn't have seen firsthand whether or not registration would do so, since we don't have it.

 

[timschochet]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

 

[Spanky267]

I am even more opposed to the government having access to this data as a result of the reports of eavesdropping and the interception of email communications.


I oppose registration in general. If a state wants to do it. I guess they have the right. But I would personally oppose it. I could only see limited reasons for them to share the data. Criminal Investigations, persons moving into a new state and interstate gun sales, which would be redundant as the guns have to be sold through two licensed FFL's in an intersate sale.

I think everyone other than Tim is opposed to the gov't spying, but that's in the other thread. However, for this topic it seems relevant since you cite privacy as the primary reason for not registering, but even then you're ok with having to register to vote because it doesn't cost anything. Would a gun registration that didn't cost you anything work? At the state level of course. Or is all this a waste of my time in that you hold guns to a different standard than any other similar right and that's that? I probably should have asked that question at the very beginning and not wasted your time.

See the thing is even with all of the government spying short of a BATFE or FBI agent going down to the gun store where I bought my pistol and pulling out my specific file, which he really has no idea exists, the government has no idea whether I own a gun or not. They dont know how many I own or not. They dont even keep record that I had a background check, since I passed. So while they can use the records that exist to track a gun to me, they'd have to do it as part of a criminal investigation and they'd most likely already have the gun since they'd need the serial number to trace it from the manufacturer all the way to me. I like the archaic nature of that system. The data is there, but really cant be used until its needed.

I'd also like to ask what the government would accomplish by maintaining a database of all guns owned privately in the U.S.? Would it reduce crime? Would it prevent murders? What would the real purpose be of registering every gun in America? California registers every handgun at the time of sale and has done so for some time. People who move into the state have 60 days to register their guns. The state even began registering rifles and shotguns at the 1st of this year. But California still has alot of gun murders, 1250 in 2010. What have they accomplished with their registry? The only thing it seems to help them with is making it easier to collect guns from private owners when the legislature outlaws them. The last sentence is hyperbole. I am sure that there are some proregistration folks that can tell me what else the database is good for.

This secrecy angle is certainly an interesting one that I don't get. It's a right. Why does it need to be so secret? Doesn't add up to me. For me, registration provides information about the gun. Nothing more, nothing less. It goes back to my assertion earlier that people want the right without the responsibility. I'm fine keeping the federal gov't out of it if you want. I think gun ownership is a serious business with serious responsibility and I see no problem with keeping track of who's signed up for that responsibility. It'd help in a variety of police investigations, "accidents", and deaths caused by gun.

Its not so much a secret as its none of the governments business. The areas where a registry would help are means already available to law enforcement that I spelled out earlier in the thread. BATFE, FBI and Local LEOs can still find out who a gun belongs to without a registry. Just takes a couple of phone calls.

But don't automate it because then it will take a couple of seconds?? This is what I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. It's already there, just not labeled a "registry".

Right and its only accessible if there is a crime. I cant say the same if there were a database in the possession of the government. Look how the IRS handled the 501C3 applications.

What are the measures in place today that allow you to believe the bold and why wouldn't they exist in an automated scenario? Also how is this anything similar to filing for a not-for-profit standing with the IRS?

I am not saying that they are the same, but look at how some of these 501c3 applicants were treated by the IRS. Many groups got a pass and got their tax exempt status immediately. Others were harrassed and harangued for months and years.

Here is what the Maryland Transportation Authority Police did to a man with a concealed carry permit from my home state of Florida. I guess state governments have access to the CCW databases of other states. What this officer did was a bureaucratic abuse of power. Its situations like these that I loathe.

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

This happens all the time. We have given our police license to abuse their powers by never prosecuting them when they step over the line. I have experienced this personally myself, plenty of times, about stuff other than guns. One time me and two friends were detained for two hours to riding too close to the yellow line.

If you want to get behind punitive measures that will show cops they can not trample people's rights with impunity, I'll be right there with you.

Clifford

I knew we'd eventually agree on something. I think this philosophy should be applied to our whole bureaucratic system.

 

[Spanky267]

I dont know how often it happens. I wish I did. I find it hard to believe that this is the only time its happened. The officer tailed an out of state vehicle that may or may not have been travelling over the speed limit. Driver says he wasnt. Ran vehicle tag through his system and pulled them over. Ran DL through system and there must have been some link between DL and CCW permit database. I think the linking of those databases is concerning and I am not surprised that they are linked.

Just my two cents but your concern seems to be misplaced. Your concern should be on the over zealous cop, not the availability of information. It bothers me greatly that people are so focused on the information when it's the PERSON taknig the action and stepping out of bounds. To me, that's the very definition of missing the forest for the trees. It's like blaming the wall you are ramming your head against for your headaches.

I am concerned about the overzealous cop. But when will we be removing people from our government? Not in the forseeable future. So we will always have people in positions of authority who will abuse their power. I'd rather not give them one more tool for them to abuse.

 

[Spanky267]

It's an odd argument to be sure.

Who cares if the state or fed knows you have guns? Seems to me that it is absolutely and unarguably in the public interest to know where the damn guns are.

And despite protestations otherwise, guns are not tracked with any efficiency from manufacturer to original owner and certainly not to secondary and tertiary owners. It is shameful.

Chaka, how can you make the assertion in bold? Gun manufacturers do track the wholesalers and retailers that they send guns to. They know which serial numbers when to which dealers. Those dealers then track who they sold the gun to. Where the trail may go cold is after the first end user, if he doesnt sell it back to a licensed dealer.

The means exists but they are not nearly as efficient as you are making them out to be.

I am also surprised how you are so casually glossing over the secondary/used market.

Link

I'm not glossing over the secondary market. But guns can be traced using the method that I outlined. Just as a matter of principle I think the government has too much information as it is. It isnt the best steward of that information and it has abused that information in the past. I'd rather it have fewer databases etc.

They can sometimes be traced and often with great difficulty.

When a gun is used in a crime it should be a quick and efficient point and click interface to a national database with immediate results. I don't understand how you could be opposed to this when you likely own guns because you worry about crime.

Because like any searchable database it can be used for other than its intended purpose. Companies used to keep internal databases of their customers with contact info, demographic info and buying history. Then they found out they could make money selling those databases to other businesses. That data has been abused ever since. I dont see why a gun registry wouldnt be used in other than its intended purpose.

And so we end up with a haphazard, ineffective system and criminals remain on the streets.

How is that better?

Sorry if you don't want to be inconvenienced by marketing calls.

You just summed up our justice system. I'd rather a few criminals go free than innocent people be harrassed or prosecuted.

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

What pray tell are the real threats to our freedom?

 

[The Commish]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

 

[The Commish]

I dont know how often it happens. I wish I did. I find it hard to believe that this is the only time its happened. The officer tailed an out of state vehicle that may or may not have been travelling over the speed limit. Driver says he wasnt. Ran vehicle tag through his system and pulled them over. Ran DL through system and there must have been some link between DL and CCW permit database. I think the linking of those databases is concerning and I am not surprised that they are linked.

Just my two cents but your concern seems to be misplaced. Your concern should be on the over zealous cop, not the availability of information. It bothers me greatly that people are so focused on the information when it's the PERSON taknig the action and stepping out of bounds. To me, that's the very definition of missing the forest for the trees. It's like blaming the wall you are ramming your head against for your headaches.

I am concerned about the overzealous cop. But when will we be removing people from our government? Not in the forseeable future. So we will always have people in positions of authority who will abuse their power. I'd rather not give them one more tool for them to abuse.

This our philisophical difference. I say address the problem. You say limit the tools. I've learned that if you take a tool, it doesn't stop them. They'll find another.

 

[timschochet]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here.

 

[The Commish]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

What pray tell are the real threats to our freedom?

Have you been paying attention to our government agencies or Snowden?

 

[The Commish]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here.

If I told you that I planted flowers on Saturday and they were gone on Sunday and this event was proof I had a deer problem, would that be correct? No...it's not proof. It's evidence that I have most likely have an animal problem. Reality is, it could be one of 100 different animals. There's a difference between evidence and proof.

 

[timschochet]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here.

If I told you that I planted flowers on Saturday and they were gone on Sunday and this event was proof I had a deer problem, would that be correct? No...it's not proof. It's evidence that I have most likely have an animal problem. Reality is, it could be one of 100 different animals. There's a difference between evidence and proof.

OK- gotcha.

 

[The Commish]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

It's a circular argument: the threat of registration is proof that the tyranny they fear exists. That's why we'll never win this argument with them.

And the other problem is that while a majority of Americans are in favor of gun registration and background checks, very few of us (those in favor) are willing to vote on the issue. Whereas gun owners who are against these ideas vote as if this were the ONLY issue that is important. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, it will be very hard in the future to convince lawmakers to put forth any reasonable gun legislation.

Perhaps it's a piece of evidence. It's a stretch IMO to say it's actual proof.

I don't understand what you're trying to write here.

If I told you that I planted flowers on Saturday and they were gone on Sunday and this event was proof I had a deer problem, would that be correct? No...it's not proof. It's evidence that I have most likely have an animal problem. Reality is, it could be one of 100 different animals. There's a difference between evidence and proof.

OK- gotcha.

By the way, I DO have a deer problem and I don't know what to do short of going caveman and pissing on everything around my house, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'd like to hear them

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that concealed carry is the white man's great equalizer to a world that he sees as increasingly set against him.

Only the white man? It is the honest, law abiding citizens equalizer against the criminal element.

 

[Spanky267]

I dont know how often it happens. I wish I did. I find it hard to believe that this is the only time its happened. The officer tailed an out of state vehicle that may or may not have been travelling over the speed limit. Driver says he wasnt. Ran vehicle tag through his system and pulled them over. Ran DL through system and there must have been some link between DL and CCW permit database. I think the linking of those databases is concerning and I am not surprised that they are linked.

Just my two cents but your concern seems to be misplaced. Your concern should be on the over zealous cop, not the availability of information. It bothers me greatly that people are so focused on the information when it's the PERSON taknig the action and stepping out of bounds. To me, that's the very definition of missing the forest for the trees. It's like blaming the wall you are ramming your head against for your headaches.

I am concerned about the overzealous cop. But when will we be removing people from our government? Not in the forseeable future. So we will always have people in positions of authority who will abuse their power. I'd rather not give them one more tool for them to abuse.

This our philisophical difference. I say address the problem. You say limit the tools. I've learned that if you take a tool, it doesn't stop them. They'll find another.

I think you should address the problems and also limit their ability to abuse by limiting the tools.

 

[Spanky267]

The bottom line is that many gun owners don't want a national registry because they don't want a national registry. There is no logic behind whatever boogeyman they are protecting their guns from.

And, once again, the fear of the government taking their guns is horribly misplaced. The real threats to our freedoms are not enforced by violence and the threat of violence (through your guns) will not protect you from them.

What pray tell are the real threats to our freedom?

Have you been paying attention to our government agencies or Snowden?

Yes all the more reason to not willingly give them more information.