Gun Control concerning SHOTGUNS/RIFLES

[pinky]

I always wonder how registering a private persons weapons, keeps guns out of the hand of criminals. Has anyone ever seen a report where a confiscated gun from a crime was traced back to the owner? Sure, it's happened, but what's the percentage? Smoke and mirrors. This is done to "make" people feel safe without actually doing anything.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Most of the time a gun thats been stolen is either pawned or the serial number is filed away making it untraceable if it gets used in a crime.

 

[pinky]

I hope everyone doesn't think the only way criminals get guns is to steal them from private homewners. Theft of shipments is easier. That way you get a whole truckfull at once.

Retreiving serial numbers.

 

[Minor Axis]

Guns are so embedded in U.S. culture. Gun registration at some level can make a difference stopping some unbalanced people from getting one, but they have minimal effect on criminals who obtain guns by what-ever means or first time incidents where someone uses a gun to kill in the heat of the moment. I really don't know the answer but I'm more worried about pistols than rifles and shotguns, but think that assault rifles should be banned. Anyone caught with one, should be taken to the nearest wall and shot.

This poll should have included a choice "I don't know." I did not vote.

 

[Strauss]

Guns are so embedded in U.S. culture. Gun registration at some level can make a difference stopping some unbalanced people from getting one, but they have minimal effect on criminals who obtain guns by what-ever means or first time incidents where someone uses a gun to kill in the heat of the moment..

Allow me to correct your misunderstanding (see I'm being nice). Gun registration does not stop wackos and people"in the heat of the moment" from obtaining handguns. The Brady Bill and other waiting periods for background checks are what catch the wackos (within certain parameters) and provide the cooling off period for the heat of the moment jerkwads. Gun registration could be completed in 5 minutes, without the wait period you'd have the problems you identified.
Again, the registration paperwork never leaves the gun store owners premises. There is no national register of handgun ownership.

 

[Minor Axis]

Allow me to correct your misunderstanding (see I'm being nice). Gun registration does not stop wackos and people"in the heat of the moment" from obtaining handguns. The Brady Bill and other waiting periods for background checks are what catch the wackos (within certain parameters) and provide the cooling off period for the heat of the moment jerkwads. Gun registration could be completed in 5 minutes, without the wait period you'd have the problems you identified.
Again, the registration paperwork never leaves the gun store owners premises. There is no national register of handgun ownership.

I'm being nice too. Please re-read my post. I did not say registration stops people in the heat of the moment. I've not identified any wait problems and I've not said or implied there is a national registration process.

 

[Strauss]

Gun registration at some level can make a difference stopping some unbalanced people from getting one,.

I'm being nice too. Please re-read my post. I did not say registration stops people in the heat of the moment. I've not identified any wait problems and I've not said or implied there is a national registration process.

Hummmm.........Please explain how "registration at some level can make a difference" concerning unbalanced people?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

If someone has been diagnosed with a disorder like being bipolar, it'll show up on their records and they'll be denied a gun.

 

[Zorak]

Again, the registration paperwork never leaves the gun store owners premises. There is no national register of handgun ownership.

Isn't it rather important that there should be?

Or is that just me.

 

[Strauss]

Isn't it rather important that there should be?

Or is that just me.

Its just you.

 

[Zorak]

Yes of course, that's more the style of a civilized, modern, western society.

 

[Strauss]

Yes of course, that's more the style of a civilized, modern, western society.

Oh you want socialism or fascism or communism. Everyone of these forms of government either outlaw the ownership of guns (any type of gun) or have a national registry. So I take it you define "civilized, modern, western society" as oppressive, regressive and paternalistic.

 

[Minor Axis]

If someone has been diagnosed with a disorder like being bipolar, it'll show up on their records and they'll be denied a gun.

Thank you.

 

[Strauss]

If someone has been diagnosed with a disorder like being bipolar, it'll show up on their records and they'll be denied a gun.

Thank you.

Now I see, you two don't understand the process involved in purchase of a gun. Way back when, you could purchase a gun by filling out a registration form. There was no background check. So criminals, mental cases and liberals (<joke) could buy guns at will. Then the federal and the states started requiring background checks to catch all the criminals, mental cases and liberals (<joke) to prevent them from purchasing handguns.

So when you gentlemen say "registration" will catch yayda yada..........you're wrong, background checks will catch yada yada yada........

 

[Zorak]

Oh you want socialism or fascism or communism. Everyone of these forms of government either outlaw the ownership of guns (any type of gun) or have a national registry. So I take it you define "civilized, modern, western society" as oppressive, regressive and paternalistic.

I wouldn't call most of Western and central Europe a socialist/fascist/communist government, or Canada and Australia.

I don't see why you are against a national register of gun owners?

 

[Minor Axis]

Now I see, you two don't understand the process involved in purchase of a gun. Way back when, you could purchase a gun by filling out a registration form. There was no background check. So criminals, mental cases and liberals (<joke) could buy guns at will. Then the federal and the states started requiring background checks to catch all the criminals, mental cases and liberals (<joke) to prevent them from purchasing handguns.

So when you gentlemen say "registration" will catch yayda yada..........you're wrong, background checks will catch yada yada yada........

Sounds like your belittling background checks. This is yours and he-who-shall-not-be-named tactic in many of your posts. "You don't understand". I grew up in the D.C. area that has gun registration and I do understand the process.

My quote:
At some level can make a difference stopping some unbalanced people from getting one, but they have minimal effect on criminals who obtain guns by what-ever means or first time incidents where someone uses a gun to kill in the heat of the moment.

I've never said or implied background checks are full proof. Being effective "at some level" indicates there is some level of effectiveness, even if it is minimal. For some reason you are taking issue with that. The effectiveness of back ground checks is determined by the process. It is far from full proof always subject to improvement.

And there are two levels here, believing or not believing in the concept and how the actual process is conducted. My impression is that because you don't believe in the concept your purpose here is to discredit it. I believe in the process and most reasonable people do.

 

[Strauss]

I wouldn't call most of Western and central Europe a socialist/fascist/communist government, or Canada and Australia.

I don't see why you are against a national register of gun owners?

Because I believe in the freedom of the individual to own guns without big brother overseeing who has them.

BTW, the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that concept.

 

[Strauss]

Sounds like your belittling background checks. This is yours and he-who-shall-not-be-named tactic in many of your posts. "You don't understand". I grew up in the D.C. area that has gun registration and I do understand the process.

My quote:
At some level can make a difference stopping some unbalanced people from getting one, but they have minimal effect on criminals who obtain guns by what-ever means or first time incidents where someone uses a gun to kill in the heat of the moment.

I've never said or implied background checks are full proof. Being effective "at some level" indicates there is some level of effectiveness, even if it is minimal. For some reason you are taking issue with that. The effectiveness of back ground checks is determined by the process. It is far from full proof always subject to improvement.

And there are two levels here, believing or not believing in the concept and how the actual process is conducted. My impression is that because you don't believe in the concept your purpose here is to discredit it. I believe in the process and most reasonable people do.

As sometimes wonder about your ability to process information. I'll type slow so maybe you can follow along.

Gun registration does not stop wackos and criminals from getting guns. All gun registration does is log who bought a gun

Background checks which I whole heartily support are what catch wackos and criminals who attempt to purchase guns.

There was a time when the ONLY requirement was gun registration.

For various political reasons, the assassination attempt on Reagan being one of them, there became a mandatory background check.

Where you seem to lack understanding is that gun registration alone will not stop wackos and criminals. You need registration AND background checks.

If you can't see the distinction at this point there is nothing left to be done that can educate you.

 

[Zorak]

Because I believe in the freedom of the individual to own guns without big brother overseeing who has them.

BTW, the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that concept.

Well how does the national register actually inhibit your freedom at all? I just don't see the logic here - it seems nonsensical to me.
The value it would provide to services like law enforcement....

 

[Goat Whisperer]

If it can be called a deadly weapon, it should be registered.