Why do they need to know what guns I own? (1 Viewer)

[The Narrator]

I register my kids birth.  My car.  My birth.  My marriage.  Any significant financial transaction.  My wages.  My party affiliation.  My address.  My ethnicity.  My occupation.  The fact that I have insurance.  If I withdraw or deposit large sums of money.  Any conflicts I have between being an employee and an investor in a company.  

 I mean...that's just a start, really.

Why should I care more about gun registrations than I do about the other hundreds of things I have to register with the government about?

Yup. See also: voting.

We make it easier to own a killing machine than we do to participate in our democracy. 

 

[msommer]

I register my kids birth.  My car.  My birth.  My marriage.  Any significant financial transaction.  My wages.  My party affiliation.  My address.  My ethnicity.  My occupation.  The fact that I have insurance.  If I withdraw or deposit large sums of money.  Any conflicts I have between being an employee and an investor in a company.  

I mean...that's just a start, really.

Why should I care more about gun registrations than I do about the other hundreds of things I have to register with the government about?

Having kids is not a right, guy. It's a privilege

(/GM?)

 

 

[The Commish]

First off, the red dawn reference was a joke.  Then I gave my opinion that we could see states banning certain guns in our lifetime.

Certain guns are already banned  

And if red dawn reference was a joke, then I don't really know what the point was that you were trying to make....tough to tell what's a joke these days and not.

 

[The Commish]

To Joe's point, he's right that we should acknowledge the possibility the government "come for our guns one day".  However, when that's the primary basis for an argument against registration, that's where it pretty much falls apart.  We wouldn't ever think it a good idea to make concrete financial decisions based on the "fact" that we will be winning the lottery in a few weeks/months/years.  While it could happen, the likelihood is so small that we'd never think it a solid strategy for future financial success would we?

 

[Da Guru]

To Joe's point, he's right that we should acknowledge the possibility the government "come for our guns one day".  However, when that's the primary basis for an argument against registration, that's where it pretty much falls apart.  We wouldn't ever think it a good idea to make concrete financial decisions based on the "fact" that we will be winning the lottery in a few weeks/months/years.  While it could happen, the likelihood is so small that we'd never think it a solid strategy for future financial success would we?

A one time registration when you purchase a gun seems reasonable.  Don`t see the need to repeat it every year though.  Just report if and when it is sold and have it registered to the new owner like a car would be. 

One thing does bother me. I really do not want my fingerprints in the system.

 

[The Commish]

A one time registration when you purchase a gun seems reasonable.  Don`t see the need to repeat it every year though.  Just report if and when it is sold and have it registered to the new owner like a car would be. 

One thing does bother me. I really do not want my fingerprints in the system.

Yeah, the frequency to me seems like a money grab more than anything else.  Every single sale and gifting should be recorded too.

 

[BroadwayG]

Not the direction I would have chosen, but kudos to PA for attempting to do something.

 

[Sabertooth]

https://www.wtae.com/amp/article/pennsylvania-firearm-registration-act-would-require-gun-owners-to-register-their-guns-every-year/26840676

I haven't broken any laws. Why would the police need this information?

Fingerprints? Photographs?

Nah...I'll pass

Why do they need that information for you to legally drive a car?  

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Why do they need that information for you to legally drive a car?  

Idk, but those laws were in affect when I decided to buy a car

Oh, and I didn't drive to the state police barracks and get finger printed to buy a car either

 

[Sabertooth]

True.  I don't like it much either to be honest.  

 

[stlrams]

Certain guns are already banned  

And if red dawn reference was a joke, then I don't really know what the point was that you were trying to make....tough to tell what's a joke these days and not.

There's loopholes around gun bans.  For example, here in CT AR 15 are banned but you can purchase the parts to assemble one.  My daughters boyfriend ordered and had one together in  several hours..  Lets not forget about plastic mfg guns which will be become easier over time. 

 

[BroadwayG]

There's loopholes around gun bans.  For example, here in CT AR 15 are banned but you can purchase the parts to assemble one.  My daughters boyfriend ordered and had one together in  several hours..  Lets not forget about plastic mfg guns which will be become easier over time. 

Is there any fear in CT that hunting rifles or handguns are in danger after the banning of AR15s?

 

[The Commish]

There's loopholes around gun bans.  For example, here in CT AR 15 are banned but you can purchase the parts to assemble one.  My daughters boyfriend ordered and had one together in  several hours..  Lets not forget about plastic mfg guns which will be become easier over time. 

Then you'd agree that there's still room for improvement, no?  I will say this though.  If this statement that I am quoting now was your point with the original Red Dawn comment, I'd have never gotten there without an explanation.  

 

[stlrams]

Then you'd agree that there's still room for improvement, no?  I will say this though.  If this statement that I am quoting now was your point with the original Red Dawn comment, I'd have never gotten there without an explanation.  

What I saying is without confiscation there will be guns, even banned guns.

 

[stlrams]

Is there any fear in CT that hunting rifles or handguns are in danger after the banning of AR15s?

No, but my point was even with ban (ARs 15 not sold here) people are still getting them.  So while the ban sounds good on paper and makes people feel good, its useless.

 

[The Commish]

What I saying is without confiscation there will be guns, even banned guns.

oh...ok

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[The Commish]

No, but my point was even with ban (ARs 15 not sold here) people are still getting them.  So while the ban sounds good on paper and makes people feel good, its useless.

Curious...what's the penalty for possessing said gun and are the rules such that the purchase is illegal or the ownership or both?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Isn’t that fairly simple? 

So that if a crime is committed with a gun, it is easier to narrow down who committed the crime. 

Pretty basic. 

Very seldom is the gun left behind, or the serial number either for that matter. Are you then advocating that with registry comes a ballistics test and a tooling markings test on the bullet and ejected cartridge respectively with that information kept on file in the registry?  That would have utility, simple ownership registration, very little actually, not in crime solving.  From the ballistics registry we could trace bullets or ejected cartridges back to the registered gun which would have great crime solving utility if the ownership information was concurrently available.

A simple ownership registry has the following purposes, that I can see.  It may discourage ownership if the requirements are onerous.  It may allow some analysis of the person registering the weapons for hoarding or even, I suppose, mental health.  It would enable courts to comprehensibly order surrender or confiscation upon convictions of felonies or even misdemeanor domestic violence matters, not an insignificant matter.  Finally, it would enable a general confiscation were that ever to come about, a matter I place at a low likelihood, but it would also enable partial confiscation, confiscation of certain weapon systems that certainly are under question as to whether they should continue to be allowed and which may end up being banned.

 

[timschochet]

To Joe's point, he's right that we should acknowledge the possibility the government "come for our guns one day".  However, when that's the primary basis for an argument against registration, that's where it pretty much falls apart.  We wouldn't ever think it a good idea to make concrete financial decisions based on the "fact" that we will be winning the lottery in a few weeks/months/years.  While it could happen, the likelihood is so small that we'd never think it a solid strategy for future financial success would we?

This really isn’t very different from my argument. I wrote “zero chance”; you wrote “the likelihood is so small.” @Joe Bryant and others really challenged my statement, and because I don’t want to get into minute arguments, I’ll retract it and simply accept yours: the likelihood is so small. 

Either way, I think we reach the same conclusion: that it is irrational to fear gun registration over the possibility of gun seizures. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

BC the irresponsible maniacs and morons have ruined it for you. 

Don't be mad at people like me who want to take your guns away, be mad at those people who have made it so easy to obtain them and those too crazy to own them

 

[timschochet]

Another irrational aspect of fearing gun registration because of the threat of gun seizures even beyond the almost no chance of this happening:

If the government truly intended to seize private guns, would they need to have them registered? The answer is easily no. Maybe this first step would have been necessary 100 years ago, but with today’s technology, NSA, etc.  I’m pretty confident they can figure out who owns a gun if they wanted to seize them. 

 

[timschochet]

So IMO there are 3 falsehoods implicit in the argument that gun registration may lead to gun seizures: 

1. The government may intend to seize guns at some point in the future. 

2. The government would intend to seize guns because otherwise private gun ownership would be able to resist a government dictatorship.

3. If the government truly wanted to seize private guns, they would be prevented from doing so by lack of gun registration. 

All of these statements are false. And the larger point here is that private gun ownership is no longer relevant, in terms of government power, in our modern society. People own firearms for self-protection, hunting, hobbies, pleasure, and these are all perfectly legitimate reasons. But if the original purpose, as written in the Constitution, was in order to prevent government dictatorship, it’s outmoded, defeated by technology. Social media is a far more effective means of defeating dictatorship, should it ever come. 

That being said, the two other arguments offered here against gun registration, those being “it would serve no good purpose” and “it’s none of the government’s business” remain relevant and worthy of discussion and debate IMO. 

 

[timschochet]

Very seldom is the gun left behind, or the serial number either for that matter. Are you then advocating that with registry comes a ballistics test and a tooling markings test on the bullet and ejected cartridge respectively?  That would have utility, simple ownership registration, very little actually, not in crime solving.  From the ballistics registry we could trace bullets or ejected cartridges back to the registered gun which would have great crime solving utility.

A simple ownership registry has the following purposes, that I can see.  It may discourage ownership if the requirements are onerous.  It may allow some analysis of the person registering the weapons for hoarding or even, I suppose mental health.  It would enable courts to comprehensibly order surrender or confiscation upon convictions of felonies or even misdemeanor domestic violence matters, not an insignificant matter.  Finally, it would enable a general confiscation were that ever to come about, a matter I place at a low likelihood, but it would also enable partial confiscation, confiscation of certain weapon systems that certainly are under question as to whether they should continue to be allowed and which may end up being banned.

I didn’t originate the law enforcement argument for gun registration. A good summary of it can be found here: 

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration/

Although this comes from a pro-gun control website, the arguments for registration are made by law enforcement experts. They seem to strongly disagree with your rather casual dismissal of the benefits to fighting crime. 

 

[stlrams]

Curious...what's the penalty for possessing said gun and are the rules such that the purchase is illegal or the ownership or both?

Illegal possession of an assault weapon is a class D felony, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to five years, with a mandatory minimum one-year prison term. But a first-time violation is a class A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for up to one year, if the violator can prove that he or she lawfully possessed the weapon before the ban and has otherwise complied with the law. Illegally transporting, selling, or giving an assault weapon is a class C felony, punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up to 10 years, with a two-year mandatory minimum prison term or, in the case of transfers to people under age 18, an additional six-year mandatory minimum (CGS §§ 53-202b and 53-202c, as amended by PA 13-3).

 

[msommer]

I didn’t originate the law enforcement argument for gun registration. A good summary of it can be found here: 

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration/

Although this comes from a pro-gun control website, the arguments for registration are made by law enforcement experts. They seem to strongly disagree with your rather casual dismissal of the benefits to fighting crime. 

I'd be in favor of storing the ballistic stuff, though. As well as mandating renewed registration when changing parts that would alter said data

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I didn’t originate the law enforcement argument for gun registration. A good summary of it can be found here: 

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration/

Although this comes from a pro-gun control website, the arguments for registration are made by law enforcement experts. They seem to strongly disagree with your rather casual dismissal of the benefits to fighting crime. 

And are these experts speaking from statistical data that would be remotely relevant or are they arguing that they want any and all tools they can have regardless of the potential relevancy? 

I am not saying that one could not postulate some scenario where it would be helpful, just not many, other than in sentencing purposes where I think it could be quite helpful, and which, btw, I mentioned above because I am not advocating a position but am actually raising discussion points so as to fully understand the extent of the proposal you apparently support.  See, I don't intrinsically know what is meant by 'registration" unless it is subject to some definition, some criteria.

I can see if the information was had that it could also be used when seeking to obtain warrants and in executing warrants.  Were that the case I imagine defense counsel might have some interesting 5th amendment arguments against the registry as well as 2nd amendment ones.

BTW, I am a law enforcement expert, as expert as any at that site, and I don't casually dismiss the benefits, I ask you to be specific on what you mean so that we can examine the benefits, some of which I suggested believing that you may not have weighed them.  I was raising questions and supplying information.

In a more general vein I notice you love to cite 'experts', 'polls', or general consensus when you think it is on your side but not so much when against.  You certainly seem to recognize that appeals to expertise are of minimal persuasiveness at best and are often fatally flawed, yet you continue to do so inconsistently, depending on the issue.  I would rather learn what you think, not what I can read elsewhere.  Think and share.  It is more interesting than googling to buttress your currently held notions.  At least I think so.

As for me, I believe any benefits of registration will be negligible without concomitant ballistics information  registered. Absent such the purpose of registration is to make folks feel good that something was done.  It is to inconvenience gun owners which some find a feature and not a bug. and it can enable confiscation, however unlikely.  (as unlikely as it helping solve crime absent the further information I discussed.)  (Oh, It could have some civil benefits with insurance or safe storage requirements appended to it but that is not registration, that is registration again coupled with something else.  the something else is in need of discussion of the whole matter is, for me, without meaning. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'd be in favor of storing the ballistic stuff, though. As well as mandating renewed registration when changing parts that would alter said data

Indeed.  I am not much of a gunsmith but I could alter the tooling marks on my ejected cartridges.  I do not have the expertise to change the striations on my bullets without effecting the accuracy of the weapon though I know some who do. Of course the fact that no system is beyond defeat by those with knowledge and resources does not mean that the system might not have utility.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This really isn’t very different from my argument. I wrote “zero chance”; you wrote “the likelihood is so small.” @Joe Bryant and others really challenged my statement, and because I don’t want to get into minute arguments, I’ll retract it and simply accept yours: the likelihood is so small. 

Either way, I think we reach the same conclusion: that it is irrational to fear gun registration over the possibility of gun seizures. 

To make sure I understand, are you talking about the likelihood of government seizing guns being so small that it's almost zero?

 

[timschochet]

To make sure I understand, are you talking about the likelihood of government seizing guns being so small that it's almost zero?

Yes.

 

[timschochet]

And are these experts speaking from statistical data that would be remotely relevant or are they arguing that they want any and all tools they can have regardless of the potential relevancy. 

I am not saying that one could not postulate some scenario where it would be helpful, just not many, other than in sentencing purposes where I think it could be quite helpful, and which, btw, I mentioned above because I am not advocating a position but am actually raising discussion points so as to fully understand the extent of the proposal you apparently support.  See, I don't intrinsically know what is meant by 'registration" unless it is subject to some definition, some criteria.

I can see if the information was had that it could also be used when seeking to obtain warrants and in executing warrants.  Were that the case I imagine defense counsel might have some interesting 5th amendment arguments against the registry as well as 2nd amendment ones.

BTW, I am a law enforcement expert, as expert as any at that site, and I don't casually dismiss the benefits, I ask you to be specific on what you mean so that we can examine the benefits, some of which I suggested believing that you may not have weighed them.  I was raising questions and supplying information.

In a more general vein I notice you love to cite 'experts', 'polls', or general consensus when you think it is on your side but not so much when against.  You certainly seem to recognize that appeals to expertise are of minimal persuasiveness at best and are often fatally flawed, yet you continue to do so inconsistently, depending on the issue.  I would rather learn what you think, not what I can read elsewhere.  Think and share.  It is more interesting than googling to buttress your currently held notions.  At least I think so.

I rely on the experts in this matter, as I do on climate change, because simply put they know more than I do. I will acknowledge that this is different from climate change because on that subject the vast majority of experts agree, here they do not. There is much disageeement here as you know. 

So far as statistics go, the main problem is that we don’t have gun registration, yet, so there’s no way to look at how effective it is. 

 

[timschochet]

Thanks. What's your guess for the percentage of US Citizens who'd like to see guns restricted way more than they currently are?

75-80%. Off the top of my head. But of course, I assume by “way more” you mean the usual gun control proposals that get tossed around after every mass shooting: universal background checks, age and mental health restrictions, banning “assault weapons”, etc. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes.

Thanks.

What's your guess for the percentage of US Citizens who'd like to see guns ownership significantly restricted from where it is currently?

 

[Joe Bryant]

75-80%. Off the top of my head. But of course, I assume by “way more” you mean the usual gun control proposals that get tossed around after every mass shooting: universal background checks, age and mental health restrictions, banning “assault weapons”, etc. 

Sorry, I changed my question right after you replied.

What's your guess for the percentage of US Citizens who'd like to see guns ownership significantly restricted from where it is currently?

 

[timschochet]

Thanks.

What's your guess for the percentage of US Citizens who'd like to see guns ownership significantly restricted from where it is currently?

Sorry- is this the same question? I’m confused. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

And by ownership significantly restricted, I mean not allowing people to own certain guns that today they are allowed to own.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, I changed my question right after you replied.

What's your guess for the percentage of US Citizens who'd like to see guns ownership significantly restricted from where it is currently?

I’m not sure what you mean by changing the question. What does “significantly restricted” mean? Are you talking about taking guns away from people who already own them? 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry- is this the same question? I’m confused. 

My fault. I'm asking the question poorly.

Let me try again.

What's your guess as to the percentage of the population that would be in favor or changing our gun laws to mirror what England has?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I rely on the experts in this matter, as I do on climate change, because simply put they know more than I do. I will acknowledge that this is different from climate change because on that subject the vast majority of experts agree, here they do not. There is much disageeement here as you know. 

So far as statistics go, the main problem is that we don’t have gun registration, yet, so there’s no way to look at how effective it is. 

But we can ask what it would be for, what would be the intended purpose. If it is to aid in solving  those "who done its" where the gun is left behind but the perpetrator is not known I call B.S. since this is so rarely the case as to be a nullity. If it is to suppress gun ownership well if that happened it would likely suppress gun crime so it would have some utility in that regard.  If it were to aid in sentencing certainly that might have utility since in ordering felons to give up their weapons it would be good to know how many and what kind they have.  If it came with ballistic registration, well that might aid in solving more crimes since bullets and cartridges are often left behind at crime scenes as the shooter initially gets away.  If it is about then requiring insurance and safe storage incident to ownership, well that is another matter again.  All I am saying is 'registration" is such a nebulous concept as to lack any utility absent further definition, why not give it? What to do mean when you support registration? 

 

[timschochet]

And by ownership significantly restricted, I mean not allowing people to own certain guns that today they are allowed to own.

OK. I think I understand. 

But I have to answer your question with “I don’t know”. The only polling I have ever seen on this subject regards not being able to purchase assault weapons, however those are defined, from this point forward. That’s been a very popular idea, at times. But I’ve never seen polling on making it retroactive, which would prevent ownership of weapons that are already in one’s possession. I would have to think that would be far less popular (as well as practically impossible given our current system of government.) 

 

[Joe Bryant]

OK. I think I understand. 

But I have to answer your question with “I don’t know”. The only polling I have ever seen on this subject regards not being able to purchase assault weapons, however those are defined, from this point forward. That’s been a very popular idea, at times. But I’ve never seen polling on making it retroactive, which would prevent ownership of weapons that are already in one’s possession. I would have to think that would be far less popular (as well as practically impossible given our current system of government.) 

I know it's impossible to say for sure. But what's your guess?

If I understood you right, you'd prefer gun ownership in the US be like it is in England, right? I think tons of people would agree with you. 

I'd guess if you polled people, it would be in the 25% range. Fair?

 

[timschochet]

What's your guess as to the percentage of the population that would be in favor or changing our gun laws to mirror what England has?

OK I made this point earlier and I consider it very important: 

I think a significant percentage of the public would love us to have laws and a gun situation  similar to England-  not a majority, but significant. I would guess 40-45%. 

BUT- I think only a tiny number of people would be willing to take the steps necessary to get us that point- and by that I mean the forced seizure of most privately owned guns- not enough to force the government to do it, ever. 

 

[timschochet]

I know it's impossible to say for sure. But what's your guess?

If I understood you right, you'd prefer gun ownership in the US be like it is in England, right? I think tons of people would agree with you. 

I'd guess if you polled people, it would be in the 25% range. Fair?

You’re not correct about me. Sometimes I think we’d be better off like England. Other times I’m not sure. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

OK I made this point earlier and I consider it very important: 

I think a significant percentage of the public would love us to have laws and a gun situation  similar to England-  not a majority, but significant. I would guess 40-45%. 

BUT- I think only a tiny number of people would be willing to take the steps necessary to get us that point- and by that I mean the forced seizure of most privately owned guns- not enough to force the government to do it, ever. 

Thanks. I think that's an entirely reasonable statement. 

My point is when there's something I guess 25% to 45% of the population desires, it's a long ways from being an impossibility to happen. And I wouldn't call anyone worried about it happening irrational.  

 

[timschochet]

Thanks. I think that's an entirely reasonable statement. 

My point is when there's something I guess 25% to 45% of the population desires, a long ways from being an impossibility to happen. And I wouldn't call anyone worried about it happening irrational.  

Well we continue to disagree. 

But I want to make one other distinction: I am not calling anyone irrational. I am calling their position on this one issue irrational. Calling somebody irrational can be taken as an insult, which is not my intent. It’s a specific point of view that I deem as irrational and it does not define the person who holds it. 

 

[timschochet]

But we can ask what it would be for, what would be the intended purpose.  if it is to aid in solving  those "who done its" where the gun is left behind but the perpetrator is not known I call B.S. since this is so rarely the case as to be a nullity.  if it is to suppress gun ownership well if that happened it would likely suppress gun crime.  If it were to aid in sentencing certainly that might have utility.  If it came with ballistic registration, well that might aid in solving more crimes since bullets and cartridges are often left behind.  If it is about then requiring insurance and safe storage incident to ownership, well that is another matter again.  all I am saying is 'registration" is such a neb8ulous concept as to lack any utility absent further definition.  why not give it. what to do mean when you support registration? 

It’s a good question. I should first point out that I never said I support gun registration. I’m not sure. I have read many arguments in favor and I find them compelling. I have read some arguments opposed and find some of them compelling. Currently I lean in favor but I’m not sure. 

What I DON’T find compelling are the confiscation arguments, and almost all of my contributions to this thread have been devoted to arguing against those arguments, which I admit are easier to knock down than for me to argue in favor of registration, in which I have to rely on experts. 

To your question: I have always imagined a national database that if I were authorized, I could enter your name or SS#, and it would give me your current address and a list of all of the firearms you currently own with serial numbers. And the date of purchase. That’s about the size of it. 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Very seldom is the gun left behind, or the serial number either for that matter. Are you then advocating that with registry comes a ballistics test and a tooling markings test on the bullet and ejected cartridge respectively?  That would have utility, simple ownership registration, very little actually, not in crime solving.  From the ballistics registry we could trace bullets or ejected cartridges back to the registered gun which would have great crime solving utility.

A simple ownership registry has the following purposes, that I can see.  It may discourage ownership if the requirements are onerous.  It may allow some analysis of the person registering the weapons for hoarding or even, I suppose mental health.  It would enable courts to comprehensibly order surrender or confiscation upon convictions of felonies or even misdemeanor domestic violence matters, not an insignificant matter.  Finally, it would enable a general confiscation were that ever to come about, a matter I place at a low likelihood, but it would also enable partial confiscation, confiscation of certain weapon systems that certainly are under question as to whether they should continue to be allowed and which may end up being banned.

Good to see you DW

 

[The Z Machine]

But we can ask what it would be for, what would be the intended purpose. If it is to aid in solving  those "who done its" where the gun is left behind but the perpetrator is not known I call B.S. since this is so rarely the case as to be a nullity. If it is to suppress gun ownership well if that happened it would likely suppress gun crime so it would have some utility in that regard.  If it were to aid in sentencing certainly that might have utility since in ordering felons to give up their weapons it would be good to know how many and what kind they have.  If it came with ballistic registration, well that might aid in solving more crimes since bullets and cartridges are often left behind at crime scenes as the shooter initially gets away.  If it is about then requiring insurance and safe storage incident to ownership, well that is another matter again.  All I am saying is 'registration" is such a nebulous concept as to lack any utility absent further definition, why not give it? What to do mean when you support registration? 

Me personally, I think that suppressing gun ownership is one of the goals I support.  The second one would be to require safe storage and perhaps even have property, life, and health insurance affected by the gun registration.  Finally, I think it could help in reducing domestic violence situations, as perhaps part of court ordered turn over of weapons for those convicted of domestic violence.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It’s a good question. I should first point out that I never said I support gun registration. I’m not sure. I have read many arguments in favor and I find them compelling. I have read some arguments opposed and find some of them compelling. Currently I lean in favor but I’m not sure. 

What I DON’T find compelling are the confiscation arguments, and almost all of my contributions to this thread have been devoted to arguing against those arguments, which I admit are easier to knock down than for me to argue in favor of registration, in which I have to rely on experts. 

To your question: I have always imagined a national database that if I were authorized, I could enter your name or SS#, and it would give me your current address and a list of all of the firearms you currently own with serial numbers. And the date of purchase. That’s about the size of it. 

My question is, then, to what ends?  Where is the utility, both intended and unintended.  Why would we do this?  I believe for many it would be to inconvenience or even punish gun owners.  Me, I happen to believe, that depending on careful structuring, that it could have some utility beyond inconveniencing gun owners.  Me, I cannot imagine how the information could be protected so that it could or would not be used if confiscation were ever to arise, though I find that unlikely in general, but not as to specific types of firearms. 

I do admit there are many times where I might wish that the freedoms of my fellow Americans were severely limited as I do not trust others, necessarily, with using their freedoms responsibly.  As to me, well I want all of my freedoms regardless of whether I would restrict other's freedoms.  So often I find myself in a losing battle with my own hypocrisy.  It gets stronger while I get increasingly indolent.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Good to see you DW

Likewise good sir!

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Me personally, I think that suppressing gun ownership is one of the goals I support.  The second one would be to require safe storage and perhaps even have property, life, and health insurance affected by the gun registration.  Finally, I think it could help in reducing domestic violence situations, as perhaps part of court ordered turn over of weapons for those convicted of domestic violence.

A man who knows why he supports a matter, or is at least strongly on his way.  Very good.