One is that it may serve as a deterrent to straw purchases and other transfers to prohibited persons. If each buyer is linked to the gun, s/he may be less willing to pass it on to someone who is not able to pass the background check, and if a gun shows up in the wrong hands without good explanation, the registered owner can be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate. (And a registry would make a universal background check requirement more effective, since it would aid in identifying transfers that avoided the check.)

Second, it allows for removing registered firearms (as California does) from persons who become disqualified after purchase.

Whether these potential benefits outweigh the potential costs and/or misuses of a registry is debatable, of course...

The murderer bought the gun from another person......

You don't think there should be a way for authorities to track the ownership of that murder weapon?

PS - Welcome, newbee!

there are 300 million unregistered guns in America right now. There will be a huge pool of unregistered guns available.

Authorities can track guns - it takes a little work but it protects people's privacy.

So they've got two choices......... get rid of the gun OR go to jail.

There goes that brilliant argument, eh?

good.

I have no problem putting criminals away for possessing guns - I have always advocated that gun laws be focused on criminals.

Do you think felons will get ride of their guns? If they are not scared of using guns to murder and assault people, why do you think gun control laws will faze them?

"why do you think gun control laws will faze them (criminals)?"

Straw dealers will think twice if the gatt can be traced back to them. And you know that.

I don't think criminals will worry about that. There will be plenty of traffickers willing to meet the demand for unregistered guns.

don't you understand our present laws?

Straw purchasers can be identified right now.

This claim is so bizarre...... that it doesn't really deserve a reply.

Keep diggin'!

one of those interesting quirks in the law.

And of course private sellers who are themselves felons don't have to register their guns.

How many of those 300 million unregistered guns do you think will be registered? Don't you agree that the result of registration will be a thriving business in unregistered guns?

....."one of those interesting quirks in the law." FALSE AGAIN!

Universal background checks would require 100% checks for private sales.

Keep diggin'.

legal private sales are a state matter - unless the state has a specific law against straw purchases it is not illegal.

Private sales only become a federal issue when the seller and buyer are from different states. Which is also a federal crime.

You really have no clue how things work, do you?

Check out the laws of the various states.

Background checks are not required for private sales in many states. That's WHY the push for Universal Background Checks at the federal level.

I support universal background checks. My state has had them for years.

"My state has had them for years."

Then you must live in one of these states.....

CA, CT, DC, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI. The rest of the 50 states have NO background check requirement for private sales.

8 out of 50! What's wrong with that picture......?

And soon it will be 9 out of 50 with the CO law changing.

I take you are agreeing with me.

I live in RI. I support universal background checks. I do not support registration.

So that means you are FOR "straw sales", eh?

SO now you know that your state is the "exception"...... and not the "rule" regarding background checks. That's progress.

OK. Let's hear 'em!

if it is good enough for Patrick Leahy then it should work just fine.

..... same burden of proof for conviction. EPIC FAIL without record keeping on firearms.

.........no records except provided by the various states.

That's why a 100% universal background check law must be legislated.

you can have one with out the other. Which is the way it should be.

.......background checks only track to the original buyer....... Could be a straw purchaser.

because it is not a federal issue. Congress has always left licensing and registration to the states.

they don't have that power.

To make 100% background checks the law of the land?

Oh! I know they do! So do you!

Or is there a law against it?

the commerce clause (stretched nearly beyond recognition) is what the Federal govt. uses to justify regulating gun sales. But registration is a state issue - there is no federal interest involved. States have sovereign powers in many areas.

Is that "Dueling Banjos" being played in the background?

so tell me - should cities or states be able to set their own gun laws? Or should we have one national standard?

you are all against state rights - except for when you're not.

You're going to fill that hole you are standing in!

which one do you support when it comes to gun laws? Should states be able to pass their own gun laws or should there be one set of laws for the entire country?
Still standing behind that banjo comment?

So a repuke Congress could nullify CT's new gun control laws? OK.

Why would they?

DOMA ring a bell?

Are you going to answer the question?

The question you refuse to answer is whether the Federal government can overwrite state gun control law. If you really believe federal law trumps state law then the answer is yes. I don't think you really believe that.

I mentioned DOMA as an example of a federal law that trumps state law - and also an example of a bad law passed by Congress. A federal law negating CTs new gun control laws would also be a bad law - but perfectly legal according to you.

You'll figure it out.

I'm not a straw buyer. But you knew that.

I'm sure it will be a terrible "gotcha moment" for me!

... that you don't understand what a straw buyer or his/her customer (both of them lawbreakers already) would do with the file?

When you figure it out, you can unleash your "gotcha."

To explain the painfully obvious to you? C'mon now. What might a criminal straw buyer do with a file and a gun? Think hard. I know you can do it.

are miniscule..almost never happens. When is the last time we heard of a gun being used when the origin of thegun couldn't be determined..without spending a billion to create a database of 300,000,000 for the 3% used in crime annually? Might it be a usable tool occasionally? Maybe. What will the cost per use be? What is the chances the same results will be found through other means? High..Contrary to myth, most people who shoot someone are caught as it is..

Knowing that...... would you be as willing to be a "straw seller" to that murderer if you knew they could trace that gun BACK TO YOU?

You might think twice about that, eh?

the straw buyer says it was stolen or gone missing. The police pressure the buyer and the buyer says something like, 'you might check...' and that is one way they catch the criminal..further the straw buyer usually isn't charged with anything..

I think a much more economical and less intrusive solution would be requirement for reporting lost or stolen guns...backed up by prosecution of those who didn't report a lost or stolen gun.

And a system to track firearms ownership.

of registration..especially on a cost/benefit basis..Canada is a model for the extreme cost and how almost useless the system has been in solving/preventing crime...

What was the overall murder rate before and after?

...... so I just wondered how they compared to the US as far as murder rate by guns.

on a cost/benefit basis.

Why should the murder rate by guns matter? How has their overall murder rate historically varied with the US?

If we outlaw red cars, the red car accident rate would drop dramatically..how would it effect the overall accident rate?

Obviously they're doing something right.

even when gun laws were very similar..

I believe it has to do with the economic system, availability to health care including mental health services, more rural population, less racial diversity, and about a hundred other differences including certain firearms laws..has nothing to do with their crazy expensive gun registry.

Sucker the people into this and when it proves to be a failure we'll move on to the next regressive step in our control scheme.

fred: I have never heard a pro gun control person explain how a registry would be a crime deterrent.

Thanks for expressing a concern from the small minority, fred. I will proffer one reply, but be aware that in the court of public opinion, background check legislations are not filibusterable - you don't have anywhere near the 40%.

In 1790's, the US govt kept what were called 'militia returns', which listed all militia members who owned firearms, & whether they were rifles, musquettes, pistols or otherwise. Members were not disinclined to list what firearms they had on this 'registry', it was moreso a bit of a minor status symbol to own a firearm, and they had little to no qualms to admitting firearm ownership (since only about 1 in 4 militia eligible males owned guns you might see what I mean, hardly anyone else possessed private firearms, & recall women couldn't even vote).
So it appears the founding fathers had no objections to a 'national firearms registry', and would've smiled on joe biden & barry for suggesting this measure.
And what should law abiding gun owners have to fear from a registry today? outside of nra paranoia & fearmongering?
The nra is & has been duplicitous on this; in fopa1986 (firearm owners protection act), they argued successfully for a provision to restore gun rights to ex felons, and now nra wants to proscribe any registry on the claim it would violate 'law abiding gun owners', yet a registry would also benefit tracking recidivistic criminality by the very ones they reinstated gun rights to via fopa.
Face it, the nra sees a big market for gun manufacturers in ex felons with restored gun rights, wanting to buy guns.

av8tor: .. in my experience, at least in the overwhelming majority of the country where permits are issued, the criminals permit is revoked and they are ordered to turn in their firearms. If the state has PC they can get a search warrant.

Are you on the same side that argues that criminals will always get guns, will never obey the laws?
Right, a newly exposed criminal is supposed to & will always turn in his guns. Realize how a registry would help, now?
Then you argue police 'can get a search warrant'. Right. Cops would make a cursory inspection of drawers & closets, but think they're gonna spend all day to find out where he hid them or had a friend hold them temporarily?
See how a registry would help, now?

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.

Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

from an FFL. After that, illegally-minded buyers and irresponsible gun owners can simply sell to just about anyone they please, with little chance of being held responsible to who they sell to, or even knowing if they did. 'I didn't know...' is a valid defense for most private sales.

Registration will assist keeping track of all sales, stolen guns, 'lost arms', straw purchases, serve as a deterence for those wishing to simply 'lose their guns in a boating accident', and give several options for further charging criminals, removing illegally possessed guns from the street, disarming felons who don't turn their guns in, etc.

UBC with registration slows the illegal flow of guns, which is a large contributor to gun crime.

but as far as creating a national gun registry? No way. Registration leads to confiscation. And please don't try to convince me that our government wouldn't do that, or that it "couldn't happen here". Look at NDAA, the patriot act, etc. oh no, the .gov would NEVER trample on citizens rights or misuse its power.

Huh?

Is that what fear mongering Wayne LaPierre told you?

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated.

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

..... if the law changes?

to confiscate (currently) legally owned firearms in the event of a future regime deciding that its citizens simply can't be trusted.

You would violate the law if you didn't like it. Very responsible.

Not gonna happen.

Do you believe all the NRA propaganda?

Worried that the UN is "gonna' get 'em"?

Laws ordering confiscation were enacted, you would oppose them?

..... I'd oppose that too!

armmueller: May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation).. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

And firearm murder rates & firearm suicide rates in oz have fallen significantly since the buyback. The aussie gun buyback 96/97 was done with widespread public approval in response to the mass shooting at port arthur australia; wiki: The buyback was predicted to cost A$500 million and had wide community support
Australians generally agreed with PM howard & the guncontrol policy worked well thru the years. You pick a bad example to argue registration & confiscation, the buyback was compulsory but also had widespread approval.

armmueller: "Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain."

I suppose you have a point with the last sentence - they do not care much for guns overall, but do recall (similar to Oz) the 1997 british handgun ban was in response to a mass shooting at dunblane, with kids involved, and the ban has widespread support same as buyback in australia.
Stricter guncontrol has solid majority support in america too, especially after mass shootings, the difference being that australia & the UK didn't bend to the bleatings of a pathetic minority intent on deception & selfish concerns regarding unfettered gun ownership.

(All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Oh my, typical rightwing propagunda. Civil liberties persecuted in UK? well they haven't really mounted much of a complaint against the handgun ban, largely favor it.

Gun control is like fighting drunk driving by making it harder for drunk people to drive cars.

Fixed it for ya!

You are welcome.

All those people in New Orleans were having a mass hallucination when their legally owned firearms magically disappeared.

The pro-gun-control guys are at Gun Control Reform Activism. That is a protected forum that does not allow pro-gun posts. While this group is open for both sides to post, the gun-grabbers have mostly left for the other room.

They dont allow pro 2A posts? Seems a little intellectually dishonest. Thats how people end up saying things like "everyone I know agrees with me"

Yup! The OP is very "new" here. He might not have known that.

It was rather obvious that he was new.

will slow the bad guys down. It won't stop all of them and nobody has the illusion that it will. However, as long as those loopholes exist, the pipeline to the bad guys is wide open.

Stolen guns on the black market aren't cheap since they can't be traced. It's cheaper to go to a gun show for that Saturday Night Special.

Remember, no gun control advocate is crazy enough to think we can stop gun crime in this country. The guns are out there and the carnage is going to continue. All we hope is that sensible measures that don't infringe on the right of sensible people to own firearms will slow it down, given enough time.

You know, like that first AWB did.

the vast majority of crime guns are obtained through theft. In Australia they are obtained by theft, smuggling, and an occasional basement sub machine gun.

Riiiiight!

It was YOU who said the "majority of crime guns are obtained through theft".

Not true. Keep diggin'!

when you have nothing. I don't do your homework for you. I provided evidence, you do not.

Don't make me laugh!

I said:

"If numbers are true, and 40% of illegally used guns were stolen from
'legal' sources"

And you said:

I doubt the numbers are true
the average "time to crime" as in, the last 4473 filled out to crime is about 12 years.
Even the 40 percent claim, based on a 20 year old study with a too small sample, actually said it was closer to 16 percent.
&
that was the claim that are private sales
the stolen number includes those stolen from PDs, or in NYPD's case, used as barter for the cop's drug connection.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=116634


But now you say:

actually it won't
the vast majority of crime guns are obtained through theft

So which is it? Is 16% "a majority" of crime guns, or does your last comment (about PDs) move the total closer to 40%?? Still doesn't seem "a vast majority". WHat am I missing here?

the largest numbers are "family and friends" and "the street" including fences and drug dealers. If you pay 100 bucks for a gun on the street, is it new from a gun shop? No.

The two are not contradictory. Are you implying that the thief, before selling it to some drug dealer, fills out a 4473? You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive when in fact they are not.

numbers and opinions.

And what and how they constitute this: "the vast majority of crime guns are obtained through theft".

Now you made it even more confusing.

If you can straighten it all out for us, we would appreciate it!

It didn't stop the sale of a single gun. All it did was make the gun manufacturers make minor cosmetic changes to their product line and keep on selling the same guns. Sometimes they did have to change the name of the gun. Here is an example:

Pre-Ban TEC-9. It was outlawed by name in the 1994 AWB.


Same gun, with minor cosmetic changes and renamed AB-10. AB=After Ban

happened since it was allowed to lapse?

or increased SSRI drug sales.

We have laws against murder, assault, armed threats and similar activities. Those crimes continue to occur. I would suggest that if murder was not illegal, there might be more murders. When a weapon is used to murder, the weapon used most often is a gun. We therefore have laws restricting who can possess guns. All the effort is being focused on making more people in the gun's chain of custody responsible for crimes committed later. Additional laws add a burden to the state. Additional laws (providing they are crafted with enough care) can lead to great conviction rates and reduce crime. The problem is that catching 90% of the criminals rather than 80% costs double. (roughly) The principle of diminishing returns quickly makes this game very burdensome.


I don't support registration because much of it just demonstrates to the people that they are not trusted by their government.

I support improving the NICS.

I support ending the war on drugs.

...of trafficking offenses. You can't really nail someone for illegal gun trafficking unless you can prove he got them illegally. And THAT's a deterrent.