England: Gun Registration

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yes I agree but that is in a utopian society not the one I live in unfortunatly so would you like to address the question set in the real world?

this is a societal risk assessment - so if we say that x number of years means the person is released and now no longer a criminal, then we are OBLIGATED to not restrict from them all the rights due to them. even legal gun ownership

perhaps if we were able to do that objectively, then the threat of Joe serial killer getting out in ten years and having the 'right' to legally own a firearm would force the courts to reassess the idea that 10 years is acceptable - because it's the person that's a threat, so if they are a threat with a gun after ten years, then they are a threat without a gun after ten years - therefore, they shouldn't have such an easy sentence

Simply - people would be the threat, people are the "weapon". Focusing on the tool is ignorant, focusing on reacting to behavior is the real fix.

So it's not utopia - if a person has demonstrated they are violently criminal, then releasing them is the mistake, whether or not they get guns, or bats, or knives. That part of the real world needs to be fixed.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Yes I agree but that is in a utopian society not the one I live in unfortunatly so would you like to address the question set in the real world?

In a utopian society, banning guns and gun registries would help prevent gun crime.

In the real world, they do not, because criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, no matter how much the politicians want them to.

[Skyrad 0]

So what firearms laws would you have?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Because the bad chaps certainly wont bother to register anyway. I think I agree with you. It's like these knife/gun amneties that they have.. where they leave a big bin somewhere and let people throw stuff away... who would do that? Moms that find little Johnies 45 or Samerai sword under his bed? Certainly noone who ever wanted to use one in a crime.... Like the lists, it's just a PR exercise.

Correct! Gun registration is accepted as an article of "faith" by the anti-gun folks, like a religious belief in a divine being. They're so invested in the idea that they don't bother to actually think about the actual mechanics and how useless it is. They just know that it's a common political target to shoot for, gun guys don't want it, and therefore it must be a good thing. Somehow...

Car registration certainly doesn't prevent anyone from speeding or driving drunk. It's just a tax. What stops driving infractions is cops on patrol, to catch people in the act, and to deter lawbreaking by their presence. If only they would take that same approach for gun crime. Kill the gun registry, and use the funds to put more cops on the street, where they can deter criminals by their presence, and catch thugs in the act. That's what will lower crime.

Oh, and it doesn't help to have goofy ideas like I heard from England on the radio this morning, where "Wanted" posters are being forbidden, because it invades the privacy of the criminals. They do stupid stuff like this to prevent criminals from being apprehended, and then somehow blame guns for crime...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So you'd advocate criminals legaly owning firearms?

In England, you have to be government-approved in advance to buy a gun. Criminals don't get that approval, so that's already taken care of. But that doesn't stop them from getting guns on the black market.

What you don't seem to be "getting" is that laws don't stop criminals from breaking laws - that's what they do - that's why they're criminals. Just because you pass a law requiring people to register their guns, doesn't mean that the criminals are going to obey it.

So what you end up with is a nice tidy little list of all the law-abiding people who own guns, whom aren't the problem in the first place. So the list is useless for crime control.

Register criminals, and then you've got something.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Ok, I agree to a point and am willing to be swayed. But if there is no registration of firearms then what would distinguish between the legal owners and the illegal owners except when they're breaking the law? Would you advocate the scraping of all firearms laws? If not then what laws would you keep or introduce?

I have a simple answer that most logical people agree with -

Scrap the gun laws that amount to prior restraint, and vigorously enforce that laws that involve actual intent and harm, or attempted harm, to a second party.

e.g. - do away with registrations and ownership bans, laws against carrying (legalize concealed, open, or both) and pour money into law enforcement that deals with assaults, robberies, homicides (read state and local, not federal).

(I'd also split the BATFE in half - the tax parts can stay in the Treasury department, but remove the F and E and roll them into the FBI, other federal investigations, or shitcan them)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Scrap the gun laws that amount to prior restraint, and vigorously enforce that laws that involve actual intent and harm, or attempted harm, to a second party.

Bingo! Don't harass and punish people who aren't bothering anyone just because they own a gun. Punish the people who actually commit acts that harm others.

Quote

e.g. - do away with registrations and ownership bans, laws against carrying (legalize concealed, open, or both) and pour money into law enforcement that deals with assaults, robberies, homicides (read state and local, not federal).

(I'd also split the BATFE in half - the tax parts can stay in the Treasury department, but remove the F and E and roll them into the FBI, other federal investigations, or shitcan them)

You've got my vote!

Going back to the poll at the top of this thread: 45% of the respondents want gun registration.

I find it interesting that even though there is no example anywhere in the world of gun registration actually being effective in deterring crime, so many people still think it's a good idea. One can only conclude that anti-gun people don't care whether or not it works - all they care about is harassing gun owners, because that is a fit punishment of its own, just for daring to be different from them.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Going back to the poll at the top of this thread: 45% of the respondents want gun registration.

I find it interesting that even though there is no example anywhere in the world of gun registration actually being effective in deterring crime, so many people still think it's a good idea.

What truly boggles the mind is that these massive registration schemes not only fail to produce any valuable results, they also cost a king's ransom to run. They promised Canadians that it would cost only 2million dollars, and then after hiding the true cost so as not to be evicted from office, the programs has run intot the billions of dollars. With A B.

Do people pushing these registration ideas just like paying taxes? Does anyone else think we would be better served if instead of investing in useless databases, we spent that money on more officers and more resources for law enforcement?

Quote

One can only conclude that anti-gun people don't care whether or not it works - all they care about is harassing gun owners, because that is a fit punishment of its own, just for daring to be different from them.

That or they have SEVERE issues with phobias and projection/ tranferrence. I understand if someone else wants to avoid things, but why they want to deprive everyone else of that choice is beyond me.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

In Reply To
One can only conclude that anti-gun people don't care whether or not it works - all they care about is harassing gun owners, because that is a fit punishment of its own, just for daring to be different from them.

That or they have SEVERE issues with phobias and projection/ tranferrence. I understand if someone else wants to avoid things, but why they want to deprive everyone else of that choice is beyond me.

I think it's more basic, and is something you see in other areas besides gun laws.

It's an attempt by politicians to appear as if they're doing something. It's basically just political window-dressing.

Kind of like lowering the % alcohol DWI limit from .1 to .08 or then to .06.
It doesn't actually translate into lower amounts of drunk driving accidents, but hey, .08 is less than .10, so it looks better, right??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Gun registration laws can only document which Law Abiding Citizens have them. What good is that?

This statement is so incredibly flawed it isn't even funny....


Please define Law Abiding Citizens

[tri160 1]

How is this statement flawed?
Do you see criminals filling out registration forms? I only see law abiding citizens filling them out. you need to wake up and smell what you are shovelling.(BULLSHIT)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I think it's more basic, and is something you see in other areas besides gun laws.

It's an attempt by politicians to appear as if they're doing something. It's basically just political window-dressing.

I understand why the politicians do it. It's their job to look like they are giving people what they want.

My question is why do people want it? What makes a non-politician call for gun control?

Becuase it worked so well in other places? HAH!!

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Gun registration laws can only document which Law Abiding Citizens have them. What good is that?

This statement is so incredibly flawed it isn't even funny....

Actually it is 100% accurate. The supreme court of the United States has ruled that felons and people intent on committing felonies cannot be prosecuted for failing to register firearms. Forcing them to register is forcing self incrimination, and we don't do that. Therefore only people who do not commit crimes have to register their guns. Hence, Gun registration laws can only document which Law Abiding Citizens have them.

Quote

Please define Law Abiding Citizens

Legal citizens who have never committed a felony and do not intend to. Any questions?

Also, why have you completely ignored the issue at hand, that these registries cost a great deal of money that would be better spent on law enforcement, while producing nothing of value?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Gun registration laws can only document which Law Abiding Citizens have them. What good is that?

This statement is so incredibly flawed it isn't even funny....
Please define Law Abiding Citizens

Since you say it's flawed, how about you actually try and explain your theory? We've not just going to take your word for it without any supporting facts or logic to support it. If you want to make some kind of point, you've got to do better than that, above.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Please define Law Abiding Citizens

In this case, Law Abiding Citizens are those who obtain and register handguns legally. So, you end up with a DB full of legal gun owners.

Please let us alll know how my statement is "incredibly flawed". Should be easy to explain.

. . =(_8^(1)

[twibbles 0]

Quote

I find it interesting that even though there is no example anywhere in the world of gun registration actually being effective in deterring crime, so many people still think it's a good idea. One can only conclude that anti-gun people don't care whether or not it works - all they care about is harassing gun owners, because that is a fit punishment of its own, just for daring to be different from them.

Only thing tha comes to mind is in Singapore, population 4 million, there's no gun crime to speak of. Private ownership of guns have been banned since the 1800's, and the using or attempting to use arms during a crime, such as a robbery, is a capital offence in Singapore.. Different culture i guess. Then again, the entire male population over 18 has served for 2.5 years in the military.

"The Arms Offences Act[5] Any person who uses or attempts to use arms (Section 4) can face execution, as well as any person who uses or attempts to use arms to commit some scheduled offences (Section 4A)"

Eugene

edited to clear up some poor wording.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it interesting that even though there is no example anywhere in the world of gun registration actually being effective in deterring crime, so many people still think it's a good idea. One can only conclude that anti-gun people don't care whether or not it works - all they care about is harassing gun owners, because that is a fit punishment of its own, just for daring to be different from them.

Only thing tha comes to mind is in Singapore, population 4 million, there's no gun crime to speak of. Private ownership of guns have been banned since the 1800's, and the using or attempting to use arms during a crime, such as a robbery, is a capital offence in Singapore.. Different culture i guess. Then again, the entire male population over 18 has served for 2.5 years in the military.

"The Arms Offences Act[5] Any person who uses or attempts to use arms (Section 4) can face execution, as well as any person who uses or attempts to use arms to commit some scheduled offences (Section 4A)"

Eugene

edited to clear up some poor wording.

My friend, that is not gun registration, that is an out and out BAN on firearms.

Quote

Private ownership of guns have been banned since the 1800's

Also, before you consider that a success, you have to compare crime rates. Sure, there is little to no gun crime, but what about overall IndexI offenses? Is it better, or just done without guns?

What I'm saying is "Sure, there's less gun crime, but who cares whether it's a gun or something else?" Banning guns lessens gun crime. Whoopie. Who cares if there are still crimes committed with other implements? Why focus on the tool rather than the act?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[twibbles 0]

I concede on the outright ban on firearms. Personally, i'm for gun registeration, along with capital punishment for gun crimes. From the police force, in 2001 in Singapore, there's 32 murders, with a population of 4.3 million. For comparison, Washington D.C., has 35 murders with a population 0f about 500,000 in 2004.


http://www.spf.gov.sg/publication/pla/02p04.htm
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ssn/feat/4Q94/feat.html

Eugene

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I concede on the outright ban on firearms. Personally, i'm for gun registeration, along with capital punishment for gun crimes. From the police force, in 2001 in Singapore, there's 32 murders, with a population of 4.3 million. For comparison, Washington D.C., has 35 murders with a population 0f about 500,000 in 2004.


http://www.spf.gov.sg/publication/pla/02p04.htm
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ssn/feat/4Q94/feat.html

Eugene

not sure what this proves, since DC has very restrictive gun laws & I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) has an outright ban on private handgun ownership.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[justinb138 0]

I don't think anyone who supports gun registration has answered the question so far.

How does making law-abiding citizens register their firearms help prevent gun crime?

[twibbles 0]

Quote

Quote

I concede on the outright ban on firearms. Personally, i'm for gun registeration, along with capital punishment for gun crimes. From the police force, in 2001 in Singapore, there's 32 murders, with a population of 4.3 million. For comparison, Washington D.C., has 35 murders with a population 0f about 500,000 in 2004.


http://www.spf.gov.sg/publication/pla/02p04.htm
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/ssn/feat/4Q94/feat.html

Eugene

not sure what this proves, since DC has very restrictive gun laws & I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) has an outright ban on private handgun ownership.

Hmm, so the major difference between DC and Singapore is avaliability of guns, and the punishment for it? It could highlight that it's not gun restriction, but the enforcement and punishment that causing the difference. About avaliability of guns.. If you really want to, you can smuggle it in from Thailand through Malaysia into Singapore in a car. Unless you're very unlucky, or the police is tipped off, it's doable.

Eugene

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

not sure what this proves, since DC has very restrictive gun laws & I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) has an outright ban on private handgun ownership.

I'm a gun supporter, but I won't knock the Singapore culture. That island country is much like any of our great big metro areas here in the states, except as clean and organized or better than any of our cities, I feel safe everywhere there and can go out at any time.

I doubt the effect is from a gun ban or anything like that. I think the primary effect is that they VIGOROUSLY enforce the laws they have on the books and emphasize personal responsibility - no excuses, you act in an illegal fashion, you get punished and almost immediately. And their punishments are very strict. Some points from that culture we could take a good lesson from - but these aspects are the same ones that legal gun owners also tend to support.

Singapore, strangely enough, is a good role model for many positions that gun owners have. Despite their gun ban position which would initially seem to be in direct conflict.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

i'm for gun registeration, along with capital punishment for gun crimes.

Do you want capital punishment for knife crime too?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Hmm, so the major difference between DC and Singapore... It could highlight that it's not gun restriction, but the enforcement and punishment that causing the difference.

Ding ding ding!

Correct. It's not the guns, it's the law enforcement. If America enforced its existing crime laws, with certain capture and harsh punishment, then crime would go down even further than it already has. However, if you turn police into bureaucrats and turn the justice system into a revolving door, then you're going to have more crime, guns or no guns.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

i'm for gun registeration, along with capital punishment for gun crimes.

Do you want capital punishment for knife crime too?

I'd like to see PROPORTIONATE punishment, but never Capital Punishment, along with persons serving their entire sentence without remission for "good behaviour" ("BAD behaviour would incur a lengthening of sentence or harsher regime).

This may seem reactionary, but I do believe that the most powerful way to rehabilitate offenders is to leave them shit-scared of going back. As you may gather, I admire Joe Arpaio and his methods of discouraging recidivism. The UK could do with a loan of him to reform our prison system.

As for gun registration, as long as it's used purely to track who owns what and to prevent unsuitable persons holding guns or buying ammunition, then it's fine, a lot better than the presently over-lax American system. Unfortunately, it never seems to stop there.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.