U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

I see this is just going to go on and on.

Uh huh, so you want more.


Each time without rationalizing it.
I want or I think and there just should be aren’t rationalizations.

Which clearly indicates fixation on the device.


Registration is one of the biggest gun grabber dreams. If you subscribe to that then you ARE without a doubt in their camp. Comparing guns to meds is a piss poor analogy, btw.


I’m not even going back to verify that and I don’t think anyone on this forum supports arming every teacher. At least half the teachers can’t find their own asses in the dark with both hands and they think guns are icky. What we advocated were school employees with carry permits carrying a concealed handgun on their person. It would be strictly voluntary.


I can’t imagine anyone calling YOU a gun nut. I proudly admit I’m a gun nut and I never see you at the meetings.


Yep. We grudgingly accept some things (don’t wait for me to make a list for you) but pro-gun people do not advocate gun control and they definitely don’t want more of what they’re not supposed to be advocating.

Not so much more as a replacement of the existing legislation with some that would work.



I don't feel like searching, copying, and pasting so I will sum it up here (again):
I support a registry of some types of firearms that have a higher than average potential for civilian damage in order to provide some sort of accountability for firearms once they have left the manufacturer's warehouse. Holding someone accountable for a weapon that they provide to another illegally for the purposes of committing vioent crime seem quite logical. That being said, there has not been a realistic proposal to date, largely in part to the fact that the majority of those proposing this type of regulation know little about firearms or their owners. If there is a better way to make it more difficult for violent offenders to obtain weapons with no recrimination for those who supply them, I am all ears. Just to clarify (again), I do not think that every single firearm needs to be registered, just those that go beyond what would be considered a minimum for hunting and/or self-defense (where those lines are drawn are still up for debate in my head).



It is not so much that I want more; I just want effective gun regulation. And by gun regulation, my primary focus is safety, not taking them away.

Quite possibly. As you over-simplify and mis-interpret my statements and positions, I feel compelled to reply and/or clarify. Our last ride on the gun regulation merry-go-round lasted quite a while, with your argument s consisting mainly of taking my words out of context and/or making some astounding leaps in reasoning to accuse me of things that I do not believe. Even on points that we would agree on, you would seem to forget several pages later and accuse me of being against you on that specific again. I am more patient than those you usually drive off with your insulting manner, your constant lack of factual data, your sheer volume of response, and your somewhat hippocritical attacks on content and style. So yes, this may just keep going and going.

^

SoG, I hate to break it to you, but you're trying to hold an untenable position, "I support the Second Amendment but...", which we're very attuned to in the gun rights camp. Simply put, you *cannot* support any form of gun registration and still try and claim not to be anti-gun, not only is registration one of the easiest anti gun proposals to debunk the effectiveness of, it's the easiest to point out the abusive potential of, as it has been tried numerous times in other countries, and Every Single Time has led to no effect on crime and eventual confiscation. Even the Canadians will tell you that it's been an absolute fiasco, and a very expensive one at that. You want Raptor off your back? Come clean on registration as pointless and abusive (there is no way to do it that is not either), or come clean as anti-gun, those are your choices.

Just to keep things interesting.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f48_1365824374

Proves my point about registration. It will ALWAYS be abused.

All the drama and emotional gymnastics aside, it still boils down to what I said before and what you have repeatedly re-validated for me.
So again I'll repeat:
1. You've clearly advocated national gun registration.
2. You’re fixated on the device and not the deed.

What's particular disturbing about your stripe of anti-gunner is that you're an anti-gun / gun owner plain and simple. The more trusting gun owners see you as a fellow gun owner and automatically consider you to be an ally. WRONG!!
I know your type, having dealt with them before in the real world. I'd much rather have the black helicopter conspiracy breed (few that there actually are) on my range than an anti-gun / gun owner. The black helicopter breed are nuts, but with them I feel I'm dealing with a known commodity and could safely trust them more if it came down to it.
Whatever, but I'm done with you.

Last edited by Raptor on 30 Jan 2014, 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Very good article and further evidence that registries with any potentially harmful information are never to be trusted.

Most are sold or traded privately here.I don't see anyway to register them unless you go door to door and I don't think that will fly well.

It sure as hell didn't fly very well in Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
Here are a few copy-n-pastes from the article (bolding mine). This alone says a lot.

"Bill C-68
The Firearms Act was created by Bill C-68, An Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons, which was introduced in 1993, and aimed at the licensing of all gun owners and registration of all firearms. The bill also classified replica firearms as prohibited devices, with those already owned being grandfathered. It was passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent in 1995. The Canadian Firearms Centre was established in 1996 to oversee the administration of its measures.[6]
The registration portion of the Firearms Act was implemented in 1995 and the deadline for gun owners to register their non-restricted firearms was January 1, 2003.[7] There is disagreement on the percentage of gun-owners who complied with the registry. The Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association estimated that over 70% of all firearms in Canada were never registered.[8] Meanwhile, the Coalition for Gun Control claimed that ninety per cent of all gun owners registered their firearms, representing ninety percent of guns."

"Cost overruns
The registry again became a political issue in the early 2000s when massive cost overruns were reported.
In early 2000, the Canadian Firearms Program released a report that showed that implementation costs were rising. Major backlogs in registration—largely as a result of firearm owners waiting until the last minute to apply—general increase in costs, fee waivers for early applications, and high error rates in applications submitted by firearm owners were all cited as contributing factors to the rising costs. Although not reported, many political scientists believe the real reason behind rising costs and time was due to government inefficiency, and not the fault of gun owners.[7]
In December 2001, cost rose to an estimated $527 million. The Canadian Firearms Program reported that a major factor behind the rising costs was the difficulty it had keeping track of licence fees collected. This was blamed, in part, on the computer system used to process applications. The audit said that the problem could not be resolved without "massive change," including "significant investment" in the computer system.[7]
In April 2002 the tab for implementing the registry rose to $629 million. The costs were $2 million to help police enforce legislation; a minimum of $60 million for public-relations programs, including television commercials ($18 million of which went to ad agency GroupAction, which also received millions in sponsorship scandal contracts); $227 million in computer costs, including complicated application forms that slow processing times; and $332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms."

Registering guns does seem like a futile gesture. It's impossible to keep guns completely secured all the time and people are going to trade and steal among themselves anyway. It's a huge expense and no gain.

MO was also placing a stigma on the mentally ill,not everyone who has a mental illness is going to go ballistic.We need better mental health care,rather than more gun control.That is the only thing that can prevent more random and school shootings.

Unless your goal the whole time was to create a list of who owns firearms for later confiscation, hence why people like Raptor and myself react so strongly against the idea, especially when it's being touted as "reasonable" by someone.

Hallelujah!

When you started this thread, did you ever imagine it would go for 30 pages?

I'm a pragmatist.


I didn't realize : ) In retrospect, the thread title is a little inflammatory as it presupposes a problem with gun violence in the U.S. and it has been argued that it's not as bad as the anti-gun media make it out to be.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZO30lPGm4[/youtube]