CDC: No Proof That Gun Laws Are Effective

Registration, be it federal or state, is a bad thing if you want to guarantee that no government agency wants you to surrender your firearms at anytime in the future.

 

What does that have to do with laws?
However you are correct, if I have no gun, I can't defend myself by shooting someone trying to kill me.

 

That avatar is all my own creation. Want to know what it means?

Now, don't dodge, it's unbecoming. Registration leads to confiscation. Please demonstrate.

- - - Updated - - -

Quite right. Registration certainly helps government to find legally owned firearms. That's part of its purpose. Is that a bad thing?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/28/nyc-alarms-notice-immediately-surrender-your-rifle/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html
You'll like this one...any reason to confiscate guns:
http://downtrend.com/travis/california-begins-confiscating-legally-purchased-guns
They cannot confiscate guns unless they are registered. Get it?

http://www.guns.com/2014/11/11/police-now-to-come-knocking-after-funerals-in-search-of-guns/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/foghorn/chicago-firearms-confiscation-begins/

registration always leads to confiscation.

 

That is precisely why no second ammendment supporter wants a federal database of firearm owners.
It is currently illegal for the federal government to keep records of firearm owners.

 

I keep asking these anti-Rights people why the government needs know where the guns are? What business is it of anyone whether or not someone owns a gun/s.......
I know they usually start by saying something ignorant with ".....well.............just because...." which is all the reason THEY need, and it takes so little reasoning skills to get to that point..............

 

Are you arguing with my logic?

 

The armed criminal will ALWAYS get you first. Chris Kyle ought to be example enough.

 

I guess because I know several seriously unstable people who have guns and shouldn't. The fact that they have really high powered weaponry scares me more than the remote chance that the government is going to confiscate guns from responsible gun owners. But that is just my risk calculus.

 

..........reasoning from a person who thinks about stealing guns and is paranoid about getting snipered.......................from 2 miles away, or was it two blocks? I forget...............

- - - Updated - - -

see post #85

 

Why does the government want to know where legally owned firearms are? By definition, legally owned firearms are not used in crimes, not stolen, not linked to crime organization's, and are not breaking the law. These are not the guns that commit the offenses listed above.

The only reason to register is to find out who has what, so when you want to get it, you don't have to look hard.

 

Let me change a few words of yours and see if you understand your own logic using a different item.

Your logic is laughable at best.

- - - Updated - - -

Not true. Prove your statement. You gave one example.

 

Arguing with a foreign liberal who think they have a moral superior high ground is a waste of time. Any American who supports gun control is a fool, any American who supports gun confiscation is a traitor. No matter how you twist the constitution to suit your needs you will be nothing more then an a Benedict Arnold trying to sell out the US to the UN. The constitution protects the individual right to bear arms.

 

Since you asked, no. I am arguing with a fool. You demonstrating your selective support for the Constitution and BOR insults logic.

 

Fair enough evidence, but without getting into semantics I have to say that there must be due process, none of this rounding up people and taking their lawfully owned firearms off them by intimidation or deceit. Due process must be followed. And yes, the point of registration is to know where the lawfully owned firearms are. And yes, that can lead to confiscation - provided there is due process. And that seems to be the case in your examples - particularly the article in the Huffington Post.

Now, a question. If registration can lead to confiscation of weapons which are held in breach of the law does that make it a bad thing?

 

Ah, a federal database. Yes, I can understand that. In my country it's all state based, the feds have no constitutional right to interfere. When John Howard did it he used financial pressure on the states and territories to get them to change their firearms control laws.

But what about the state level of registration and licensing? Bad idea? If so, why?

 

Any firearm is potentially dangerous. I'll get in quick here - yes, a lot of things are potentially dangerous, but firearms are made for one purpose and that purpose is sufficient to get the tag "potentially dangerous". Not news to responsible firearms owners I know. Let me give one reason for registration. Storage. It's a pain (and could be expensive) but they have to be stored safely and securely. Thieves will steal firearms if they can get them. Getting them from homes where a firearm might be stored insecurely is one way crooks get weapons. If a firearms owner is a bit on the slack side but knows that there could be a random inspection then it might encourage them to buck up and keep those firearms stowed safely and securely.

 

The means to address "unstable" people has always been available. If you are threatened and can convince a judge (a very easy task if you are in an area in which the govt bends backwards to promote gun control) then your problem is resolved. Why don't you avail yourself of current law rather than play into the gun banners hands?

 

Same reason Federal is bad. For instance, California requires registration of firearms and later banned a firearm they had previously not banned. Owners had to sell them or turn them in.

 

Where is our guarantee and who will be held accountable if/when the state shares it's data base with the Feds or the general public?

http://www.redstate.com/diary/dloes...egistration-mo-omitted-that-atf-made-request/

http://www.guns.com/2013/03/26/is-missouri-giving-gun-owner-info-to-the-feds/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cials-spar-order-make-list-gun-owners-public/

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/15/ny-gun-owners-must-file-form-to-keep-permit-info-private/

Why is it that every time I go to a Federal installation, the first thing they ask me after doing a background check is "Where is your gun"? Half the time, the security guard replies with "this is your last chance to tell us where the gun is before we search your car" when I tell them I left it at home. They know I have a CHL and that I am not allowed to bring it onto Federal property. How did they get this info if they are not keeping tabs on gun owners with state provided information?

 

there is evidence that increasing gun laws does reduce crime.

look at what happened in Britain after they banned handguns.

murder and other crimes went down.

 

In Connecticut, the AR-15 WAS legal. An unconstitutional law was passed, imposing restrictions on the configuration of the AR, and making it illegal to own "high capacity" magazines. Owners of AR-15's were given a "grace period" to either sell their guns out of State, or turn them in.
How could the State have any clue who had complied and who had not, unless they had retained information from the "Brady check"? This is against the law. They don't care.
The new law against AR's went into effect. The State knew that some 100,000 people had not complied. Now, they are slowly and systematically confiscating those rifles. This IS happening, RIGHT NOW.
-or so I've read.
One can logically assume then, that the States and the Feds are compiling records Illegally by recording and retaining the information that is provided every single time one purchases a new firearm. It has already begun.

 

I don't think there will be a con census between us because our governments are so different. What is reasonable and sensible to you is not to me. People in the United States are secure in their persons and property from unlawful search and seizure. A random inspection would violate their 4th amendment rights that protect against things like you describe.

As to thiefs, every individuals situation is different and forcing people to conform to a specific type of security is kinda narrow minded to be honest. Apartment floors typically have a weight requirement, the apartments themselves sometimes aren't terribly big, and the typical apartment dealer moves every once to two years. A large safe that would deter a thief, read: not sheet metal, wouldn't preclude apartments above the main floor, but probably all of them. Anything that can be mounted to a piece of furniture or stored under the bed can be picked up as easily so the intended purpose is mute.

I hope you don't counter that apartment dealers shouldn't own guns because that would be placing a value judgment on apartment dealers that they shouldn't have a specific tool at their disposal because they share walls with other people.

 

I'm assuming that California complied with the proper processes as regards making that happen.

 

Funnily enough unlawful search and seizure laws here spring from the same place that they did in the US and the law operates in much the same way, discouraging the authorities from acting unlawfully as the evidence gained would not be admitted. But I agree with you, you would probably be horrified at what we are happy with. The authority of police (in my state) to enter at a reasonable time and inspect a firearm to ensure it's stored properly is contained within the licensing provisions of the legislation. In other words, someone wants a firearm's licence then they give consent to the inspection

I agree with you, apartment owners shouldn't be penalised. In my state they wouldn't be.