Should the government be allowed to keep lists of firearm owners?

Florida State House passes bill banning lists of gun owners
Associated Press
Thursday, April 1, 2004
----
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Police and government agencies could no longer keep comprehensive lists of people who own firearms, under a bill the House passed Thursday night.
The bill (HB 155) now heads to Gov. Jeb Bush's desk. It which was pushed by the National Rifle Association, comes with stiff penalties - including fines of up to $5 million if a court determines a government agency knew one of its employees was collecting such a list.
But the measure doesn't apply to lists created as part of a criminal investigation, and despite the prohibition, existing lists cannot be suppressed if they could be used against a suspect in court.
Opponents of the bill said they are unaware of any cases where an agency used a list to violate an individual's rights.
(....)
Rep. Susan Bucher, D-Royal Palm Beach, said lists of gun owners often help law enforcement officers track down suspect in criminal cases. Without that tool, she said half the cases punished under the state's "10-20-Life" laws would not be prosecutable.
(...)
"Fifty percent of those criminals are going to walk away if we pass this bill today," she said.
Law enforcement officials said they don't generally keep arbitrary lists of gun owners.
(...)
----
Read the rest here.

But I don't see why lists should be kept on people who own guns simply for hunting or sport. If they're going to keep lists on those of us who are responsible gun owners then I want information on what the govt is doing with their lists.

They're not just in our arsenals in case we ever decide to slaughter a whole bunch of people by spray-firing kop killer bullets from the hip.

:freak:

Varmint control counts as hunting, does it not?

On edit: I sometimes use an AR-15 for target shooting. I'm a casual shooter, but if you ever go to a serious highpower match you'll see more than half of the participants using ARs, even here in California where you can't buy one.

...to have a list of people who own 'assault weapons' but not 'sporting' or 'hunting' weapons?

If you feel it's a good idea to have lists of gun owners then it's a good idea to have a list of all gunowners. The only thing dumber would be calling for closing the 'gunshow loophole' and not go after the 'private sale loophole'.

FULLY automatic assault weapons I meant to say but I'm typing fast because I'm in a hurry.

I happen to own an AR-15 and a Hungarian AK-47 (both of which were purchased legally by my father who used his FFL license)

They are fun, but in the hands of person who is not familiar with such weapons they could be dangerous. Unlike hunting weapons these weapons are designed to fire rounds that are not only quite potent but also at a very fast rate. A bolt action hunting rifle cannot be fired in the same manner as my AR-15. I'd have 5 rounds or more in a target before you could chamber a 2nd round into a bolt-action hunting rifle.

Therein lies the difference.

I still believe semi-automatic assault rifles should be more difficult to purchase than hunting rifles, given the nature of what they were designed for.

can an assault weapon fire faster than, say, a Remington model 1100 shotgun? That's very useful for hunting, but fires just as fast as an "assault weapon".

What happens when they interpret "assault weapons" to include your HUNTING guns? After all, they're semi-automatic...

Especially in light of Jesse Jackson's remarks yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=49490&mesg_id=49589&page=

That's true, I have a semi-automatic Browning 12 gauge, but I'd say the difference again is magazine capacity, My Browning holds 5 shells, where my AR-15 holds nearly 30 rounds, but then again 5 rapidly shot rounds could do the trick on anybody.

What happens when they interpret "assault weapons" that could include hunting guns? I'd protest that pure and simple.

Truthfully I support the right to bear arms probably to a greater extent than most people on here, but I still support responsible gun laws which keep weapons like my AR-15 from being bought with nothing but a driver's license from a Wal-Mart like establishment or a gun show.

...all assault weapons magically disappear. Use any definition of assault weapon that you like. Do you think any person intent on doing someone else harm would not carry out their plan? I feel they would just substitute another weapon.

Can you imagine somebody knifing up a Luby's?
Sniping off a roof with an axe, or even a bow and arrow?
Drive-by poisonings?
Holding up a bank with sharpened screwdrivers?

Of course murder wouldn't be a thing of the past. Murder predates firearms. But the speed, precision, and distance that you need to kill and get away with it come with firearms, as does the ability to kill a whole lot of people at once without killing yourself too.

...just assault weapons. Some people would have us believe that if we only got rid of the assault weapons (whatever they are) then crime would go down. Surrrreeeee

I simply believe in taking steps to ensure the wrong people don't get their hands on assault rifles, or at least make it harder for them. Banning all firearms though would be stupid and dangerous as murder is indeed something that predates firearms.

Watch the movie "Demolition Man" to see the effects of outlawing firearms (and a few other things) I thought it was a pretty good statement on what happens when you start with taking away a few rights and what it can lead to.

"Use any definition of assault weapon you like."

...if you make the definition mean 'anything that shoots a bullet'.

knifing up a Luby's? there have been mass attacks with edged weapons. Strichnyne in the salad bar would have killed just as many people as the handgun did, maybe more.
Sniping off a rooftop? Wouldn't molotov cocktails work just as well?
Drive-by poisonings? There have been drive-by hit and runs, with large casualties. Take that case in California in which the old guy ran down people in the farmer's market accidentally. A car can be used as a very effective weapon.
Holding up banks with sharpened screwdrivers? Banks have been held up with pieces of paper, when no weapons were present.

If people want to create mayhem, they will. The tools they use are irrelevant. The two largest mass-murders in US history were both committed without firearms, one being done with aircraft commandeered using case cutters, the other one being committed with a truck full of fertilizer.

How do we approach this issue? Do we look at it using facts, logic, and common sense, or do we approach it ideologically and accept uncritically any argument that favors our "side" while rejecting any argument that doesn't?

Think practically for a moment. Here's a Luby's. Here's you. You want to kill a bunch of people. There are maybe 100 people in there, including some adult males who are bigger and tougher than you. Is a knife going to do it? Do you have any chance whatsoever of doing your damage and getting away? Or wouldn't a couple of uzis or an AK serve you a whole hell of a lot better?

Strychnine in the salad bar? How's it going to get there? What if somebody sees you - total failure, right? Also, what if the first victim notices the taste, or one person keels over before more than a couple of others have been dosed? Even if you get lucky, the victims still have a much better chance in the emergency room than they would if you'd had that AK.

Heaving a molotov cocktail off a roof in hope of taking out a single identified target? Oh please. Chances of missing, chances of hitting someone else, chances of the victim surviving after medical treatment, all three skyrocket.

Note that the only example you can produce of mass killing by car was an accident. Nobody does this on purpose. Anyway, cars have to be registered, so why not guns?

Banks have been held up with pieces of paper? Goodness, what did the pieces of paper say? "Pretty please"? No, they said something like "I have a gun," didn't they? So the prevalence of guns in the hands of civilians has something to do with the effectiveness of that piece of paper, doesn't it?

Both terrorist attacks you describe were the result of months of tactical planning. Most killings in this country are unplanned or impulsive. So let's solve the bulk of the problem and not get hung up on a few high-profile exceptions.

"So let's solve the bulk of the problem and not get hung up on a few high-profile exceptions."

Isn't that what you're saying?


You're completely missing my point. If somebody wants to create mayhem, they will, regardless of the availability of guns. Guns don't just magically appear in the hands of criminals. They must plan to get them, and ammunition, and magazines. They then must learn how to use them, and get them ready. If a gun wasn't available in the planning stage, what evidence do you have to suggest that they wouldn't substitute another method? The Olympic Park bomber didn't use a gun, and neither did the Unibomber. Same deal with thet kid who was putting pipebombs in mailboxes. Bombs can be easily made, without more planning than it requires to get a gun and learn how to use it. They're also more effective than firearms.

As for the bank robbing bit, I regularly hear of people claiming to have a gun, but I also regularly hear of cases where the criminal claims to have a bomb.

And they're easier to get. And they're easier to use. And they take less planning and expertise. So you're telling me.

So now tell me why the number of bomb homicides is dwarfed by the number of gun homicides. Could it be because some or all of your premises are mistaken?

By the way, not getting hung up on irrelevancies isn't the same as ignoring the facts. My Aunt Rose plays tiddleywinks. That's a fact, but I don't expect you to take it into consideration regarding this issue.

They purposes are achieved via less effective means.

Remember, 3,000 people were killed as a result of flying 'bombs' in 2001.

Also, if you look at the Israel/Palestine conflict, you will find that number of bomb homicides probably does outnumber the gun homicides.

At least, considering only homicides perpetrated by Palestinians . . .

It's because they have gun control in Israel. Imagine the fun if the Palestinians had "the right to bear arms."

Do you actually believe that the Palestineans don't possess firearms?

"Also, what if the first victim notices the taste, or one person keels over before more than a couple of others have been dosed?"


Using your 'evil' gun scenario...
What if the intended victim uses his sidearm to stop the threat?

once did an editorial reply on the local TV news suggesting that skyjackings could be stopped if all the passengers were given guns when they got on the plane.

The "shootout at the OK corral" scenario works out better in theory than in practice. In practice, an excellent way to get killed is to try to draw a gun on your assailant. Ask the police, they'll tell you the same.

...your home work.

Studies have shown that people who fight back have less injuries than those who don't.

Whose studies? Studies by the Department of Justice (not under the present administration) have consistantly shown that people who own guns for defense are more likely to be killed in the commission of crimes against them than those who don't.

Or maybe your "study" just makes use of the fact that nobody counts the injuries on dead people.

"In practice, an excellent way to get killed is to try to draw a gun on your assailant. Ask the police, they'll tell you the same."

If that's what the police say, why don't they give up their guns? :shrug:

Would try to draw on someone who already had a weapon pointed at you?
The odds are definitely not your favor.

Of course I would. Abso-friggin'-lutely.

What do odds matter in gun nut fantasies? You'll notice the trigger-happy among us also pretend never to have heard the words "innocent bystander."

Seems you never here the words innocent bystander mentioned outside of law enforcement. Good point.

all the time in the guns in the news thread...along with "shot when the dispute escalated" and other terms the RKBA crowd seems never to have heard...

"If that's what the police say, why don't they give up their guns?"
You mean you think that is the common scenario where cops use their guns? Do you EVER get near the real world?

In practice, an excellent way to get killed is to try to draw a gun on your assailant. Ask the police, they'll tell you the same.

If that's what the police say, why don't they give up their guns?

Gosh. I wonder whether it could be because in the first instance the police are talking about ... well, pretty much what it says there. People dealing with assailants. If we use our noggins, we'll realize that the assailants that people are often dealing with (and the ones we hear about here all the time) are people, say, wanting their money. Those people really do tend to rely on the element of surprise.

And then in the second instance -- the use of firearms by police -- well, the situation is usually just a little bit different. The police just aren't usually dealing with someone who walked up behind them in the parking lot and demanded their money. Or someone with whom they're engaged in a barroom brawl. Or someone stalking them. Etc., etc.

Duh.

.

Are you? Is every putz with a gun? I'm not talking about target-range training, I'm talking about specific attack scenario training. And police ordinarily go into dangerous situations with plenty of backup, not lone-hotdog-yanking-out-his-gun-and-hoping-for-the-best.

"Are you?"

I am.

"Is every putz with a gun?"

Maybe not to my level, but I will not restrict their right to protect themselves with the most effective means possible because of it. It's their life and they are the ones who will have to handle each individual situation to their best judgement.

"I'm not talking about target-range training, I'm talking about specific attack scenario training. And police ordinarily go into dangerous situations with plenty of backup, not lone-hotdog-yanking-out-his-gun-and-hoping-for-the-best."

Trying to save your life is not "hotdogging" and not the time for marginalizing those who choose to have effective means available to protect themselves.

If not, then how did you achieve your level of expertise.

And I don't think one needs to be a police officer or former military to have the right to protect themselves and their family. LEOs are not in a separate upper class of citizenry. Well... at least they shouldn't be.

Otherwise i will have to assume your talking basic training. I have trouble comparing military training to civilian law enforcement, having been through both.

I have done training related to LE capacities including use of force and other random tactical training using both sidearms and long guns. I have also utilized this training in real-life scenarios on a daily basis.

What the heck does that mean? You get mugged every day?

I didn't quite catch the meaning of that either.

Ya happy now?

How many US gun owners would you say have anything resembling your training and expertise? The ones that don't (damn near all of them) are only putting themselves more at risk by trying to shoot it out with armed assailants.

Of course, I think everybody should be well-trained. However, that doesn't mean I'd like their right to protect themselves taken away because they do not have the time or the money to undergo the same training. Equal rights for all, not just the privileged.

Right on. Why should poor people have to pass drivers' tests or pay for car insurance?

Equal rights for the rest of us to get shot up by morons or run over by incomptent people unable to compensate their victims, sez I.

Why should anybody be responsible for taking precautions to protect others from the effects of THEIR choices? Why should anybody have to pay to actualize the choices THEY make?

No reason.

I have a right to spend the weekend in Paris. Who's going to pay for my hotel? Volunteers?

.

I think the costs for things like drivers school and the fee for the liscense should be reduced for poorer people. Its unfair to deny them the ability to drive just because they cant afford the fees.

That being said, there is still the matter of difference.

Driving is supposidly a priledge, while the right to keep and bear arms is a right.

Here in Texas the fee for the Concealed Handgun Liscense itself (not the classes though) is $120 (I think, its in that range over $100), however poorer people can get it for $70.

However I still think that is too expensive and it still doesnt cover the classes, which is really a barrier that keeps poorer people from being able to comply with the law. In many cases people will just choose to save themselves the money and just carry without a permit.

Just think how dangerous they'd be without it.

http://www.maderaonline.com/news/news-9m.html

http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june01/police_shootings/timeline2.html

Your right to defend your home is one thing, but when you carry concealed in public its another.It takes 6 month academy training plus 1 yr supervised patrol before i would turn a deputy out on his own. The supervised patrol is to make sure he doesn't get his ass shot for doing something stupid.

And most of that six months is unrelated to firearms training. Regular non-law-enforcement citizens should not be shut out and be considered less worthy of protection than a police officer. Considering police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect individual citizens, it makes no sense to bar this right from the rest of us.

is not "protection." You're defending the right of gun owners to stupidly get themselves killed, and by extension the right of criminals to possess and use guns that they get from private gun owners or through channels intended for private gun owners. Looking at the way things really work rather than the way we'd like them to work does wonders for the perspective.

And I am not going to be the one who makes the decision before those situations ever take place. The best person to make that decision is the one who is living it and they should have every option available to them, including their right to carry and use a firearm.

you insist on remaining in the airy-fairy land of purely abstract rights and not considering the real world in which thousands of people get killed every year by privately-owned firearms.

Privately owned firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times a year, perhaps up to 2 million times a year.

It counts purely imaginary crimes that supposedly would have happened if the gun had not been present.

Teaching them when to use them is not.
No legal obligation...Horse Shit, I was sworn in to protect the people of the state of Texas, I have to respond i have no choice. You of military background should understand that. Orders are orders.

You may have sworn that, but when someone calls you because they are being attacked and you get there too late, you are not held legally responsible for their death.

First off, our county is over 1200sq miles. That being said if it took one of my deputy's 30min to respond to a call, when it should have taken 10min, I would have Lawyers doing rectal exams on the whole dept. Don't tell me I'm not responsible.

You can't protect everybody, nor should you be responsible for protecting everybody.

As soon as Assault weapons are banned hunting rifles will be next, dont belive me look at Australia. Australia has also banned Swords.
Tom

a 2 3/4 inch 12 gauge shell loaded with OOO buck discharges something like 9 pellets of approximately the same size as a 9mm handgun per shot, depending on the shell manufacturer. 9 times 5 = 45. So 5 rounds of OOO buckshot puts out the equivalent of 45 rounds of 9mm in the same time it takes to fire 5 rounds from an assault rifle. There's a reason shotguns were called "trench brooms" in WWI. Also, there are several tactical shotgun reloading systems out there which makes reloading a shotgun as fast as switching magazines for a rifle.

Given that, it's silly to support restricting "assault weapons" while not restricting sporting arms, since the lines are so easily blurred. Also, please remember that the only thing keeping shotguns from being classified as the dreaded "Destructive Device" is a ruling by the Secretary of the Treasury Department. Case in point: The USAS-12 shotgun, which was reclassified as a DD by a three line letter.

"They are fun, but in the hands of person who is not familiar with such weapons they could be dangerous."

And a list will make the people less dangerous, how?

What weapon is not dangerous in the hands of a person not familiar with it? OC spray? Can be fatal.
Knives? Don't cut yourself.
Bolt action? Watch that 1st shot.

the government already keeps track of people that legally own fully automatic weapons. It's not just a list of names either, it's finger prints and pictures. For tax purposes of course.

assualt rifles are full auto. you're falling for the propaganda that the antis are putting out, trying to confuse semi-auto assualtweapons with machine guns.

They should also remove all traces of God from the classroom, throw parents in prison for spanking their children, convert every measurement in the country to the Metric System, allow whites and blacks to record hip-hop records together, and force our children to learn Esperanto in preparation for the coming of the Anti-Christ and his satanic One World Government.

The government keeps records of everything. Why should guns be a special, favored exception?

--bkl

Damn glad to make your acquaintence!

:toast:

Cxarmata!

--bkl

What a stupid frigging idea...the only folks to benefit from this are criminals.

They keep lists of boat owners.
They keep lists of home owners.

What's the big deal?

They keep lists of boats and lists of homes. Those lists (databases) include who owns each (registered) boat or home.

That's not the same as the government keeping a list of everyone who owns one or more boats. A marketing company might do that, but the government has no compelling reason to keep such a list.

if you don't think a list of boats and who owns them isn't the same as a list of boat owners.

Among other duties, at least when I'm employed.

I understand tables and keys and indexes and so on. The primary key in the boat registry is the registration number of the boat, not the name or address or taxpayer ID number of the owner. The primary key in the car registration database is the license plate number, not of the owner.

The fact that it's possible to write a query that will dump out the name of every person who owns a car or boat or every car or boat an individual owns doesn't make such a database a proper "list of car owners" or "list of boat owners". The primary function of each is to track cars and boats and make sure someone pays the required fees, not to keep track of people.

The fact that a list of people can be extracted from such a database is a consequence of efficient design, not a reflection of the purpose of the system.

On edit - I can tell you something about the design of the California DMV database, which tracks vehicles and vessels: There is no table of owners. Title information consists of fields within vehicle or vessel records. It's free-form text. I presently have three vehicles and one boat registered in my name, and although I am sole owner, same address, etc. on each one, my name is spelled differently for each. I get separate registration renewal reminders for each one. The database is a comprehensive "list" of vehicles and vessels. Owner information is secondary. Writing a query to produce an accurate list of owners without duplicates would be one hell of a task, and I'm glad I don't have that as my job.

and use those lists to disenfranchise people, especailly minorities. Thanks, but no thanks.

You shouldn't have to be on a government list to exercise a civil liberty. If you have to be on a list, eventually the government will use that list to deprive some people of their civil liberties.

Now the State of California gets a significant chunk of its revenue from vehicle registration fees.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but once a government has that power over a captive audience, abuse is almost inevitable. Car owners have the advantage of being a majority of voters. Gun owners don't. That's why we must fight registration schemes.

Seeing how costly Canada's gun registration has been, I'm sure proponents of any gun registration scheme in the US will try to make gun owners pay a "fee."

The purpose of car registration is primarily as a form of revenue generation. If it was only about keeping track of cars we'd all pay the same flat, one time fee. We don't. Those who drive expensive cars pay more for registration than those who drive inexpensive cars. It's about making money for the government.

"If you have to be on a list, eventually the government will use that list to deprive some people of their civil liberties."
<sarcasm>Yeah, who can forget the time the government rounded up everybody's cars using the DMV information....or confiscated everybody's home using the registry of deeds....</sarcasm>

Why am I reminded of what extremely ignorant and manipulative right wing loons say about Social Security?

Obviously they have to keep lists of registered voters to prevent vote fraud. Otherwise, anyone could walk into any polling place and claim to be a legitimate voter there. An individual could vote hundreds of times in the same election.

The lists I think you're talking about were the lists used in Florida to crossmatch names "similar" to those of convicted felons who were ineligible to vote. They weren't lists of voters. You can't purge people off the voter lists for the crime of voting.

"Obviously they have to keep lists of registered voters to prevent vote fraud."

You could simply require valid ID to vote, and then prosecute anyone who voted multiple times for voter fraud. It's not like voter fraud doesn't happen now, is it?

And the lists I'm talking about WERE voter registration lists. People on the voter registration lists who had similar names to people convicted of crimes were purged from the registered voter rolls, so that they were disenfranchised.

Here I am. Got my valid ID (don't forget that IDs are faked all the time). I walk into a busy polling place early in the day. There's no list, so how do they know whether I'm in the right precinct or not? Guess they just have to let me vote. Then I go to another polling place. By and by I get back to the one I started at. How are they going to catch me? Are the election workers supposed to memorize the face of everyone who walks through the door?

Regarding the Florida purge, those people were denied their right to vote by being removed from the voter list! In other words, no list no vote. It wasn't their presence on the voter list that kept them from voting, it was their removal from that list. So are you saying that everyone should be able to vote, list or no list? That brings us right back to vote fraud.

when you vote, you show your driver's license, and they record your name and SSN (or your DL ID #), and you sign your name. Afterwards, they run a simple comparative check. if you voted more than once, they prosecute you.

in purged votes after the fact either, huh?

:eyes::wow::eyes:

so, why introduce something that will only make it much easier to cheat? Nothing personal, its just an incredibly unrealistic plan that would only exacerbate an already less than ideal situation.

about how they keep track of voters because I don't particularly care. It wasn't even my idea, I just jokingly said that the mentioned idea was too cheap and easy for the government to ever implement.

but, well, shucks. Hey, I work in government, are you dissin' Government? Don't forget, we're the ones who brought you the Edsel. Oh, well, maybe not. But, we did bring you something good. I am sure of it.

if he ever posts something he's not going to run away from under questioning....

My internet has been spotty this week. I might have missed a few things. Did you ever mention what you considered a valid need would be for getting a concealed carry permit? I think you mentioned taggants in smokeless powder over in Europe at some point. Find any information on that for us?

I'm more than happy to argue on any number of subjects. Keeping track of voters simply isn't one of them.

and you will know how deeply I care about questions from you.

I still haven't had a chance to look up his/your position on concealed carry permits and need. Internet problems and all of that. Maybe you could do a quick summary of your/his position on the subject for me.

on somebody else....

Let us know when you put up a flag...

on concealed carry. At least I don't think I do, I don't really know his position on concealed carry. I still get a kick out of his political quiz though.

I think some people are just upset because they scored in the "You would most likely shove your neighbors into ovens if the authorities told you to" option.

to trot it out and link to his webiste...but now you want to run away from him and his idiotic views.

"think some people are just upset because they scored in the "You would most likely shove your neighbors into ovens if the authorities told you to" option."
Gee, who would possibly take that quiz seriously enough to bother to play along?

Enough to trot it out and link to the quiz. Had I known at the time that linking the quiz implied my agreement with everything on the website, well to be honest, I would have been torn. On the one hand, it would have spared me the hundred messages, at least, we've spent discussing Jackney Sneeb. On the other hand, it would have deprived me of the hundred messages, at least, we've spent discussing Jackney Sneeb. You can see the dilemma, I'm sure.

I find it hilarious that you want to run away from the website you linked to and the viewpoint the quiz represented...plus you want the rest of us to believe you never ever clicked on the link at the bottom even though the quiz was so much fun...

Of course you're also claiming that McClure-Volkmer is repressive gun legislation....which is utterly absurdist.

But then I don't see any dilemna...it's crystal clear your posts are never meant to be taken seriously, and so teasing you about the inconsistencies within them for a bit of fun is the only response worth making.

"I find it hilarious that you want to run away from the website you linked to and the viewpoint the quiz represented...plus you want the rest of us to believe you never ever clicked on the link at the bottom even though the quiz was so much fun..."

You're the one who said you agreed with Jackney Sneeb on concealed carry and are now denying it.


"Of course you're also claiming that McClure-Volkmer is repressive gun legislation....which is utterly absurdist."

How is McClure-Volkmer not repressive gun control? It banned civilian manufacture of an entire class of small arm. If that isn't repressive gun control I don't know what is. It makes the AWB look like pro-gun legislation.

"But then I don't see any dilemna...it's crystal clear your posts are never meant to be taken seriously, and so teasing you about the inconsistencies within them for a bit of fun is the only response worth making."

That's a good one. Tell us again about those taggants in European smokeless powder. Or the one about how whenever it talks about the rights of "the people" in the bill of rights, it's really talking about a collective right, that one was good. Of course, I'm still waiting for your explanation on what you consider a valid need for obtaining a concealed carry permit.

Don't take measures that would protect society from wrongdoing -- in this case, protect society from an election being hijacked and vitiated, and a totalitarian government imposed on it, by fraud -- something that could not be remedied once it had occurred.

Just threaten to punish anyone who is caught breaking the rules.

No matter how many people were caught and punished, the election could still have been stolen.

Just as, no matter how many people are caught and punished for improper use of firearms, other people will still be dead -- something that cannot be remedied once it has occurred.

This notion that the threat of punishment is an appropriate way of protecting potential victims, whether the victim be society or an individual, is just too Old Testament for words.

In the modern world, we recognize the limitations of deterrence. There just is not anything *in* this world that is going to deter a drunk with a gun from acting on impulse -- or a person bent on making the profit that is to be made, or reap the other benfits provided, from participating in electoral fraud. Those people will take the risk, virtually no matter how high it is.

And when the gun-wielding drunk's victim is dead, or the election has been stolen, there just won't be anything that can be done about it. And the dead person, and the society on which a totalitarian government has been imposed by fraud, might just wish it hadn't been so eager to trade its hugely important "safety" for some trivial "liberty".

Yes, there's a balancing to be done. But to say that it ALWAYS tilts in favour of whatever "liberty" someone claims to hold dear, however utterly pointless it may be, at the serious risk of enormous harm to other individuals or society, is just to beg the question.

.

when you vote, you show your driver's license,
and they record your name and SSN
(or your DL ID #)

As I recall, non-citizen residents (temporary or permanent) are entitled to drivers' licences in US states -- in some cases, even illegal residents are.

So that just doesn't seem to work as evidence of entitlement to vote. Kinda like how it was being said, a while back, that it wouldn't work for firearms purchase purposes, now that California is apparently going to issue drivers' licences to illegal residents.

Drivers' licences are issued, and records of licence-holders kept, for a purpose. That purpose has absolutely nothing to do with voting. The criteria for the issuance of drivers' licences have absolutely nothing to do with the criteria for voting. Specifically, drivers' licences are not evidence of citizenship.

Up here, temporary legal residents have social insurance numbers starting with "9". So one can distinguish between permanent and temporary residents based on the first number of the SIN. (Except for people who have recently become permanent residents and not yet received their permanent SIN.) But there's no way of distinguishing between citizens and permanent residents that way. How 'bout down there?

We could try birth certificates. Nope, they're not proof of citizenship (let alone residence). People born with one nationality often change it to another. A current passport is at least proof that someone had citizenship in the recent past; but it isn't proof of residence, either.

Of course, if you get a passport, you end up on a list. Just like you do if you present your driver's licence in order to vote. (Surely you're not suggesting that that paper trail should be destroyed.)

So ...

Afterwards, they run a simple comparative check. if you voted more than once, they prosecute you.

... yeah, but if you were a non-citizen and voted, they'll never find out. For instance.

And I'm not sure how prosecuting a fraudulent voter is going to restore the outcome of the election to what it should have been absent the fraud. It being the purpose of elections, after all, to ascertain the will of eligible voters, not of whoever wanders into a polling station with ID in hand -- and the purpose of voters' lists to ensure that an election is decided only by people who are entitled to decide it.

To my mind, as in many things, it just makes sense to take effective steps to prevent a problem from occurring, rather than to be content with blaming and pointing and prosecuting and punishing post facto, none of which does anything to solve the problem.

Deterrence is dandy, but prevention is much sounder public policy.

And what the hell is wrong with voters' lists, that one's just beyond me.

You shouldn't have to be on a government list to exercise a civil liberty.

Well, if the government actually had some authority or discretion to keep qualified people *off* the list, that might be meaningful. As it stands, it isn't.

The "government list" in question is composed of everyone entitled to be on it, absent mistake or fraud. There are undoubtedly instances of mistake or fraud. But I can't imagine how they could be more numerous than they would be if people could vote by presenting a driver's licence.

.

Against that list that doesn't exist? And if I sign my name, am I not entering that name on a list? If I have a driver's license, it doesn't necessarily follow that I am eligible to vote, or that I am eligible to vote in this state or in this precinct, or that I haven't already voted by absentee ballot.

run a simple sort program for that election only.

If more than 1 "John Smith, SSN#123-45-6789" show up, prosecute them. Once the list has been checked, throw it away.

Now it's okay to have a voter list so long as "it" is thrown away after the election. Good one. One print copy of the list and no electronic copy, of course. Probably made by monks with hand-dipped pens. Of course, after the primaries, the monks had better get busy and start on the new list (based on what, by the way?) for the general election, and God help the poor monks if there's a runoff.

There are people who can drive who can't vote. There are people who can vote who can't or don't drive. You can't just use DMV lists. So there has to be an actual list of voters somewhere for your "simple sort program" to have anything to work with.

a credit card...for "homeland security"? After all, if it's legal to keep a list of boat owners, and home owners, why would recording who owns what through credit records be a big deal? Hell, we could add phone records so they know who you speak to.

I have no problem with a list of all weapons.

Hell, what did you think I was going to say?

And of the firearms they own, obviously.

.

After all, if they kept track of who voted for who, whenever there was a political hate crime, the police could check to see who voted in a manner that would make them criminal suspects. "Did you vote Democratic? Well, we'll keep an eye on you. Did you vote Green? Well, I've got a truncheon I'd like you to meet."

It's all about putting more criminals in jail, right?

Who needs those pesky civil liberties. Hell, the police should just be able to beat confessions out of people. Then we'd all be safer from criminals, and would just have to worry about the cops.

and enforce the closing of it.

"Criminals" don't just reach into thin air and pull out a gun. Those guns are coming from legitimate owners and manufacturers. If we had good tight registration, we should be able to follow any gun from owner to owner and see how the "criminal" got his/her hands on it.

"Criminals" don't just reach into thin air and pull out a gun.

You have obviously missed the demonstration of how firearms *do* fall like lawn darts from the sky into the hands of criminals intent on doing evil deeds. (Never, ever into the hands of someone who then combines impulse with opportunity, and perhaps alcohol, and commits an evil deed that would not have been committed absent firearm; nooo, that never happens.)

... Hmm. Come to think of it, so have I.

You might be interested in the story I reported here, about how a shipment of many firearms that were purchased in Canada in order to be smuggled in the US was stopped because the Cdn firearms registry system detected the anomalous purchasing activity:

how the Cdn firearms registry protects USAmericans

-- and specifically post # 37, when, after listening to all the brouhaha about how the firearms destined illegally for the US from Canada were just not anything I should worry my head about, so old and unworrisome were they, I pointed out that the system would have worked the same for any kind of firearm ... and just got no response.

Criminals are just going to get guns no matter what you do, they chant. Well, criminals in the US would just have a hell of a time getting them from Canada ... or Australia ... or the UK ... . Would'n'cha love to see how that thin air plan works out for them?

.

...nobody cares what you think. :P


" and specifically post # 37, when, after listening to all the brouhaha about how the firearms destined illegally for the US from Canada were just not anything I should worry my head about, so old and unworrisome were they, I pointed out that the system would have worked the same for any kind of firearm ... and just got no response."

Ya think? :evilgrin:

Some of us care a lot more for what Iverglas has to say than for the tired right wing crap the RKBA crowd deposits daily.

I would say one, maybe two, tops.

MrBenchley:
"Some of us care a lot more for what Iverglas has to say than for the tired right wing crap the RKBA crowd deposits daily."

Superfly:
"I wouldn't exactly say 'a lot' ... I would say one, maybe two, tops."


Okay. So now Benchley's sentence reads:

"Some of us care one, maybe two, tops, more for what Iverglas has to say than for the tired right wing crap the RKBA crowd deposits daily."


Go figure.

.

Here's how it should read (with my substitution):

"One, maybe two people, tops, care for what iverglas has to say...and so on..."

Nice try, Bench.

day in and day out.

...I'm a Democrat who wants to own guns and be able to CCW.

You're also the one who posts right wing crap from sites like American Daily...

..learn something new.

I long ago learned what a pantload the RKBA cause was....

Oh wait, it didn't...

Do firearms grow on trees, or are they the things you make in bathtubs out of potatoes?

And who is it that you think just fell off that turnip truck ...?

I have to wonder why I don't see a lot more bootleg Cadillacs on the road.

Oh, wait. Maybe it's because nobody has ever imposed PROHIBITION on cars. Kinda like nobody was suggesting imposing PROHIBITION on firearms.

So maybe you can explain your apparently bizarre reference to PROHIBITION in the case of firearms.

Based on experience to date, I'd doubt it.

.

fully formed from our foreheads, spraying bullets that travel forever and penetrate buildings, buses, and Boeings...didn't you know?

This doesn't even require explanation - just NO!!!!!!

.., movies, and purchases people have made. They need that...for the children.

I didn't think criminals were able to legally obtain a firearm at a gunshow, regardless of loopholes which effect legitimate buyers.

Do you mean it won't fire bullets unless they get it "legally"?

No, it means its not a legislative issue, but an enforcement issue. The laws on the books are sufficient for the task at hand, but they are not adequately enforced.

Gun shows and personal gun sales are exempt from the most important laws regulating the sale of firearms.

Personal gun sales yes, gun shows no.

All laws that apply at places other than gun shows apply at gun shows.

... as I understand it, as things stand in many US states.

"Personal gun sales yes, gun shows no."


How about:


Personal firearms transfers: exempt.

Firearms transfers at gun shows other than by licensed dealers: exempt.

Firearms transfers at gun shows by licensed dealers: not exempt.


Might that be it?


"All laws that apply at places other than gun shows apply at gun shows."

Indeed. So in the interests of full disclosure, shouldn't we specify that the law (at least, in some states?) that exempts personal transfers out of one's back room also exempts personal transfers at gun shows?

.

Personal firearms transfers: exempt. Correct. The laws that govern how licensed gun dealers transfer firearms do not apply to private individuals selling personal firearms. Laws are different for firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act, but we can let that one go.

Firearms transfers at gun shows other than by licensed dealers: exempt. Redundant. There are two kinds of people for the purposes of this discussion: Licensed dealers, and everyone else. Where a transaction takes place is irrelevant.

Firearms transfers at gun shows by licensed dealers: not exempt Correct, just like firearms transfers by licensed dealers that take place anywhere but a gun ahow.

...So in the interests of full disclosure, shouldn't we specify that the law (at least, in some states?) that exempts personal transfers out of one's back room also exempts personal transfers at gun shows?

I cannot accept your wording. Your statement is not untrue but the wording is deceptive.

People who are not licensed dealers aren't "exempt" from federal gun laws. There's no clause in any federal gun law that SPECIFIES that private individuals are exempt from the law. There is no federal "...law... ...that exempts personal transfers out of one's back room...".

It would be more accurate to say that most federal gun laws apply only to licensed gun dealers. Regulating all private sales by individuals has never been considered by Congress because it lacks the authority to control what people do in private, intrastate transactions of their personal property. If you'd read any of the bills that propose to close the misnamed "gun show loophole", every one includes some definition of what constitutes a gun show AND a justification for regulating transactions that occur at such events; and the justification ALWAYS flows from the federal government's power granted by the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

No serious proposal to regulate all private sales of all types of firearms has ever been seriously floated in Congress.

On edit: And that's why all the hullabaloo about the "gun show loophole" is ridiculous. Congress can't do anything about ALL private transfers. If you prevent such activities at events arbitrarily defined at gun shows, those transactions can VERY EASILY be conducted somewhere else. Just about anywhere else, in fact.

There is no federal "...law... ...that exempts personal transfers out of one's back room...".
It would be more accurate to say that most federal gun laws apply only to licensed gun dealers.

That which is not prohibited is permitted. That which is not subject to a prohibition is exempt from the prohibition. Whether the exemption is explicit or tacit is merely a matter of form.

Yes, I am sure there is some convoluted US constitutional reason for it all, but I'm afraid that your semantic quibbling doesn't alter the facts.

You replied to this statement:

Gun shows and personal gun sales are exempt from the most important laws regulating the sale of firearms.

by saying:

Not quite right
Personal gun sales yes, gun shows no.

And that really, really, was not quite right.

SOME sales at gun shows ARE "personal gun sales". So we really, really cannot say "gun shows no".

The previous poster inaccurately lumped dealer sales at gun shows in with personal sales at gun shows -- by saying gun show sales were exempt.

You inaccurately lumped personal sales at gun shows in with dealer sales at gun shows -- by saying that "no", gun show sales are not exempt.

The reality seems to be exactly what I stated it to be:

Personal firearms transfers: exempt.
Firearms transfers at gun shows other than by licensed dealers: exempt.
Firearms transfers at gun shows by licensed dealers: not exempt.

If, as you say, "There are two kinds of people for the purposes of this discussion: Licensed dealers, and everyone else. Where a transaction takes place is irrelevant", why would YOU have said "gun shows no"??


If you prevent such activities at events arbitrarily defined at gun shows, those transactions can VERY EASILY be conducted somewhere else. Just about anywhere else, in fact.

Yeah, yeah. And if you take away all the guns, people will kill other people with dodgeballs.

.

The previous poster inaccurately lumped dealer sales at gun shows in with personal sales at gun shows -- by saying gun show sales were exempt.

And that person was not only wrong, but repeating a Big Lie about gun shows.

I'm simply astounded that you will not retract your own statement that gun show sales are NOT exempt, when we know perfectly well that NON-DEALER SALES at gun shows are precisely as exempt as non-dealer sales anywhere else.

If you tell me that the first inaccurate statement was a Big Lie, then I know exactly what to call the second.


edit: that's "call" the second, not "dall" ...

.

Go back and re-read the second sentence of reply #119 and please stop misquoting me. You have obviously misrepresented the meaning of my reply here by paraphrasing PART of my statement out of context.

If you tell me that the first inaccurate statement was a Big Lie, then I know exactly what to call the second.

Bullshit. I challenge you to find a single inaccurate statement I have made about gun laws in this thread. My initial reply, #119 was a gentle correction. I gave liberty_max the benefit of the doubt and offered accurate information. You opened the rhetorical can of worms here, not me.

Regarding post #108 to which I reacted, saying "Gun shows... ...are exempt from... ...laws regulating the sale of firearms" is the rhetorical equivalent of saying "Jews are criminals." Hey, it's not entirely inaccurate to say that Jews are criminals. Some, no, MANY Jews are serving time in prison for serious crimes in this country. So I left out a little qualifier. What's the big deal, eh?

I can name a few prominent Jewish criminals off the top of my head: Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, Meyer Lansky, "Lefty" Rosenthal. Can you name three documented instances where a person bought a gun from a private individual at a gun show and used it in a crime?

Even if the original statement by liberty_max contained sufficient qualifiers to make it accurate, e.g. "Some transactions at gun shows and all personal gun sales are exempt from the most important laws regulating the sale of firearms", it's still deceptive because some gun shows don't allow unlicensed exhibitors, and in some states (e.g. California) all private sales are regulated.

Have you ever studied Nazi propaganda from the 1930s? They never come out and say explicitly "All Jews are bad people", but absolutely every Jew portrayed in the films of Leni Riefenstahl et al is a criminal, an insane person, physically deformed, or otherwise undesirable. Once people who have never met a Jew have been prepped with those images, it's a baby step to tell them "Jews are criminals." That is precisely what the Nazis did.

The Big Lie is a powerful tool. Big Lies often look like little lies or sloppy language to people who don't care or can't be bothered to look for the truth. That's the beauty of it - Most people who pass on Big Lies don't have any idea they're participants in a conspiracy of disinformation.

I'm fighting a propaganda war here. I know a Big Lie when I see it.

But some of the rest of us are more interested in the truth. As for the "Big Lie" you're going on about, that was my error. The point, which has been made and proved, is that gun shows are replete with unregulated and uncontrolled gun sales by unlicensed gun dealers, and that this is perfectly legal as such.

As for the "Big Lie" you're going on about, that was my error....

What kind of error was it, library_max?

Did you actually believe that all transactions at gun shows were unregulated, or were you just being sloppy with your wording?

If the former, why did you believe that?

The point, which has been made and proved, is that gun shows are replete with unregulated and uncontrolled gun sales by unlicensed gun dealers, and that this is perfectly legal as such.

"Replete" is pretty vague and "unlicensed dealers" are criminals. Not all states allow private transfers and not all gun shows let unlicensed people sell guns.

You must have a federal firearms license to sell firearms as a business. That's just as true at a gun show as it is anywhere else, and the BATFE does enforce that law when they become aware that someone is dealing guns without a license. A private individual selling a gun or three from a personal collection is not a dealer.

It is sloppy, bordering on disingenuous, to say "'unlicensed dealers' are criminals" just because some states and some gun shows forbid it. And as long as we're directing questions, here's one for you - exactly how many guns can a private individual sell before he becomes a dealer, by law? Is there a limit? I'll bet not. Besides, as the transactions don't have to be reported or recorded, who could count? So having to have a federal license to sell firearms as a business (but not to sell firearms) is just the kind of vagueness that makes the present law unenforceable.

It is sloppy, bordering on disingenuous, to say "'unlicensed dealers' are criminals" just because some states and some gun shows forbid it.

No, it's a fact. An unlicensed gun dealer is violating federal law, and every state has its own law that requires every gun dealer to have a federal firearms license (FFL). It doesn't matter where or when the dealing occurs. Dealing in firearms without an FFL is always illegal.

And as long as we're directing questions, here's one for you - exactly how many guns can a private individual sell before he becomes a dealer, by law?

Look it up for yourself. Terms like "firearm", "dealer", etc. are all defined in Section 921 under Title 18 of the United States Code.

Here is how the U.S. Code, Section 921, defines "dealer."

"The term "dealer" means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term "licensed dealer" means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter <18 USCS §§ 921 et seq>."

See? Clear as mud. It's legal to sell firearms without a license, illegal to engage in the "business of selling firearms" without a license. I was right that there is no numerical limit, nor any requirement to record or report. The law as it reads is utterly unenforceable.

See? Clear as mud.

It's perfectly clear to me: Either you are selling guns or doing gunsmithing or running a pawnshop as a business; or you are not.

It's legal to sell firearms without a license, illegal to engage in the "business of selling firearms" without a license.

No license is required for you to sell your belongings, and that includes firearms. The federal government has no power to regulate intrastate sales of an individual's private, personal property.

I was right that there is no numerical limit...

Because there is no limit on how many firearms a person can own, it would make no logical (or legal) sense to place a limit on how many personal firearms an individual can sell. There's a man in Texas who has more than 9,000 Luger pistols in his personal gun collection. If he ever decides to sell them, he can legally sell them to any other Texan who is not disqualified from possessing firearms.

..., nor any requirement to record or report.

Once again, the federal government lacks any Constitutional authority to require any records or reports on sales of personal belongings.

The law as it reads is utterly unenforceable.

Those who would "close the gun show loophole" would make the problem even worse. At a gun show it's easy to identify who has an FFL and who does not, because show organizers track that information. Every gun show I've ever attended was crawling with cops. If undercover cops spot someone who appears to be conducting an unlawful business, they can bring down on that individual the weight of both state and federal justice and worse: They can sic the IRS on them. AAAAAAAAAAARGH!

:argh:

Suppose we pass a law saying that all transactions at gun shows have to go through licensed dealers (as they do in California). To pass Constitutional challenges, such a law will have to have a definition of "gun show" that bears some resemblence to an event at which one could reasonably expect some interstate commerce to occur. Let's say they set the minimum threshold at 12 exhibitors, OR at least 72 guns for sale. (This is close to what has actually been proposed BTW.)

Suppose Centerville has a gun show ever first Saturday of the month at the county fairgrounds for 8 hours. The venue has room for 40 vendors, and it's usually packed. Both dealers and unlicensed people exhibit and sell guns every month.

Along comes the new gun show law. The public demand to view, buy, and sell guns remains unchanged. The show's promoters don't want to lose the business of unlicensed people, so they move the venue to the Baptist church school auditorium for 2 hours after prayer meeting every Wednesday. There's only room for 10 tables, so exhibitors rotate and share the slots. They set a limit of no more than 7 guns for sale per exhibitor.

Now you have 40 tables of people selling up to 280 guns per month. Some sellers won't want to bother with the show any more, so they'll start selling through newspaper classified ads or Internet auction sites.

It's sooooooooooo easy to predict these responses.

- Will the new law change the number of private individuals who have guns to sell? No!

- Will the new law change the number of guns that their private owners wish to dispose of? No!

- Will the new law force private collectors to get FFLs so they can dispose of their collections? No!

- Will the new law prevent private individuals from selling their guns directly to other private individuals? Doubtful.

I'm not against "closing the GSL" per se, but I see it as a half-assed measure that will cost money to administer, inconvenience honest people, and isn't likely to make jack shit difference in the availability of guns to criminals.

In your reading of the USC did you happen to notice that the proscription against selling guns to prohibited people applies to unlicensed people as well as licensees? The REAL problem with the present system has little to do with gun shows; it's that a private person with a gun to sell has no way to check the background of a prospective buyer.

I've proposed making the National Instant Check System (NICS) available to unlicensed people, and clarify in the law that if you sell to a criminal you are a criminal yourself. And I'd make use of NICS the only definitive defense against such a charge.

between "selling guns" and "selling guns as a business" just plain can't see, or won't see.

The very existence of gun shows and the prevalence of private-owners-selling-their-private-property (certainly not unlicensed gun dealers!!) indicates the problem. You don't have any comparable venue for "private individuals selling their private, personal property" of any other kind except guns. This is because "private individuals" are making their living or significantly supplementing their income by selling their "private, personal property" at profiteering rates to people who don't want the background check and then buying more "private, personal property" to repeat the process.

Let 'em sell their guns through want ads or through the internet. Fine with me. Then people who sell hundreds of guns every year as "private individuals" will get caught. They don't now.

The problem with making the NICS "available" is that it's optional, and it shouldn't be. There shouldn't be an optional way to sell firearms to people who can't pass a background check, otherwise known as "criminals." And again, this throw-the-book-at-'em-in-the-profoundly-unlikely-event-that-they-get-caught nonsense is the non-answer that has perpetuated the current non-solution to a huge nationwide problem.

The very existence of gun shows and the prevalence of private-owners-selling-their-private-property (certainly not unlicensed gun dealers!!) indicates the problem....

Prevalence?

Do you have ANY IDEA AT ALL how many people go to gun shows to sell their personal guns?

Can you enumerate how big a problem we have with criminals buying guns from private individuals at gun shows?

If you don't have any numbers but have a general idea in your head that it's a really major problem, where did you get that idea?

...You don't have any comparable venue for "private individuals selling their private, personal property" of any other kind except guns.

Sure I do. Have you ever been to an orchid show?

A motorcycle show?

An antique show?

I'll bet a pint of Guinness you've never been to a gun show.

:toast:

This is because "private individuals" are making their living or significantly supplementing their income by selling their "private, personal property" at profiteering rates to people who don't want the background check and then buying more "private, personal property" to repeat the process.

People who sell things to make a living or supplement their income, people who sell things for a profit, are engaged in a business. They're liable for taxes on their profits, and bound by whatever other state and federal and local laws apply to that type of business activity. If that business involves selling guns and the person doesn't have an FFL, that person is committing a crime.

Let 'em sell their guns through want ads or through the internet. Fine with me. Then people who sell hundreds of guns every year as "private individuals" will get caught. They don't now.

Do you have any proof that people who engage in illegal gun dealing at gun shows don't get caught, or are you just guessing? BTW - A major gun collector may legitimately sell hundreds or thousands of guns a year perfectly legally. As long as it's not a business, no FFL is required under federal law.

Do you understand the difference between a business and a hobby?

Speculate all over the place, make up all kinds of crap, but when anyone disagrees they'd better be able to prove every word they say.

Unable to back up your opinions with actual facts, you accuse me of speculating all over the place and making up all kinds of crap.

:evilgrin:

once said the best way to make a monkey out of someone was to quote them exactly....

Slackmaster (#32): "The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22105

slackmaster (#47): "Who is this "RKBA crowd" you keep referring to?
However I will concede that now that I've read it I don't see anything at all wrong with the GOP's platform."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20403&mesg_id=20484&page=

slackmaster (#38): "It's the Big Lie strategy"
slackmaster (#58): "Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"
slackmaster (#65): If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875

Seems to me you've more than proved YOUR point, max.

And you are no Robert Benchley, MrBenchley.

BTW - How about those taggants you claimed are used in European smokeless gunpowder?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=44507&mesg_id=44563&page=

Or the Roman Catholic Church's support for gay rights?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20608&mesg_id=20675&page=

Have they ordained any openly gay priests, or women; or sanctified any same-sex marriages yet? Oh yeah, they're too busy telling the world that gay sex is an abomination in the eyes of God.

How about your claim that the proposed Iraqi constitution says "All gun owners must be registered and all guns licensed"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=49018&mesg_id=49135&page=

Got any proof of any of those claims yet?

I didn't think so.

The Coalition for Gun Control in Canada
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/default-english.htm
has noted this demand for "proof" that their opponents are wont to voice.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html
(emphasis added)

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

.

Here I am, a "legitimate gun owner." I want to make money selling guns to criminals. I buy a bunch of guns, legally. Now, how do I round up my customers? Put an ad in the phone book or the newspaper? No, because that might attract unwanted attention from law enforcement. Also, I don't particularly like giving my home address to armed criminals.

So I go to a gun show, right? With my guns in the back of my van or truck, right? Where else am I going to find criminals looking for guns? The playground? The library? A singles bar?

Does this help you understand why gun shows are a huge enforcement problem? In the real world, those transactions cannot be conducted NEARLY as easily anywhere else.

Wasn't FF Ls only good for the premises on which they issued at one time? When did the gun show craze start?

and the passage of the McClure-Volkmer Act...

"Members of the House arriving on the floor the day of the vote in April 1986 were met by rows of police in dress uniform standing silently by the doors of the chamber in demonstration of their opposition to McClure-Volkmer. In spite of this, the NRA had no trouble finding the votes necessary to substitute McClure-Volkmer for the Hughes compromise and to pass it. Law enforcement and gun control organizations did have the votes, however, to pass amendments retaining the prohibition on the interstate sale of handguns and banning the manufacture and sale of new machine guns. This insured a second vote in the Senate on the slightly altered bill. "

http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupone.htm

The bill opened the door and created thousands upon thousands of unlicensed "kitchen table" gun dealers who could operate without a dealers' license because they claimed to be doing so as a hobby.

some of the most oppressive gun control this country has ever passed. Signed by a Republican no less. I thought they were pro-gun?

Or is this another one of the posts you're going to run away from?

that the Firearms Owners' Protection Act was some of the worst gun control ever passed in the United States?

Even now, almost 20 years later, it's still easily in the top 5 greatest titles ever for a law. Up until the patriot act I'd say it was the best.

You replied to the statement:

Gun shows and personal gun sales are exempt from
the most important laws regulating the sale of firearms.

by saying:

Personal gun sales yes, gun shows no.

So we were supposed to understand that you meant, by this cryptic statement:

"ALL sales at gun shows are not exempt"
(or "not ALL sales at gun shows are exempt")

(not that anyone had exactly claimed that they were, either way, so the thing you must have been responding to by saying "no" was just a tad non-existent)

-- where "all sales at gun shows are not exempt" means "sales at gun shows are not ALL exempt", not "NO sales at gun shows are exempt" ... which is unfortunately what "gun shows, no", in response to what it was in response to, more closely resembles without a translation.

Sorry. Your statement contained exactly the same flaw as the one you have critiqued at great length.

.

eliminating those databases...just the one that might interfere with the gun industry's profits.

P.S.: Perhaps if some people here read some actual books, they might not post such preposterous revisionist history.

and they do more to help elect GOP members than the GOP itself, it's blatently obvious that those in-line with these groups would love some more databases.

since FACT is so inimical to their half-hysterical horseshit.

"they do more to help elect GOP members than the GOP itself"
Not even close to true...in 2002 and 2004 100% of their political donations went to Democrats. Since 1990, 94% of their donations have gone to Democrats.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q12

And in fact it's the Republicans spying on libraries, but sticking up for gun industry profits. But then the truth is a big danger to trigger-happy morons of the sort the GOP panders to.

How much is that cost overrun, now?

Canada ....1,200 gun deaths
U.S. .........30,000 gun deaths

Nice of you to bring up the cost overrun AGAIN, after Iverglas has sorted that out time and time AGAIN. Guess you also think the Reagan Administration's $30,000 toilet seat means we should all abandon toilets and shit in the woods, like some other "enthusaist" was promoting the other day.

the fact of the matter is that there is no feasible way, either economically nor politically that a database of gunowners could be established or maintained in this country.

And, as for the Reagan comment, what does that have to do with my comment at all?

"here is no feasible way, either economically nor politically that a database of gunowners could be established or maintained in this country."
There's a fucking lot more cars, and we seem to do just fine with that database without breaking the bank.

"as for the Reagan comment, what does that have to do with my comment"
Everything, fly....since your claim was that the database by its nature was too expensive, whereas it is exactly akin to Reagan paying $30,000 for a toilet seat.

Try to implement a database of gunowners, I dare you. It will be a monumentally huge failure in this country. All reasons for it's failure aside, there is no way on God's green earth that you will ever be able to implement a fiscally and constitutionaly sound database of firearms owners in this country.

Again with the Reagan strawman. Are you saying that I somehow support Reagan buying a 30K toilet seat?

MrBenchley:
"Guess you also think the Reagan Administration's $30,000 toilet seat means we should all abandon toilets and shit in the woods, like some other 'enthusaist' was promoting the other day."

You:
"Again with the Reagan strawman. Are you saying that I somehow support Reagan buying a 30K toilet seat?"


How could ANYONE possibly, um, interpret what Benchley said to mean that???

You object to a firearms registry on the ground of expense.

As I understand it, the US military has been known to spend $30,000 on a toilet seat.

Does what someone negligently or corruptly paid for an item make the item no good forevermore? If the expense of something, in a particular manifestation of that "something", is sufficient for it to be rejected in the case of firearms registries, can one assume that you also reject toilet seats?

Does the fact that the US government (read: corrupt, negligent Republican Party?) spent too much on toilet seats mean that toilet seats are no good?

Does the fact that the Canadian government (read: corrupt, negligent Liberal Party) spent far too much on a firearms registry mean that a firearms registry is no good?

Can toilet seats be bought for less than what the US government paid for them? You betcha.

Can a firearms registry be implemented for less than what the Cdn government paid for it? You betcha.

Ask google for "liberal party" "sponsorship scandal" canada and you'll see what Liberals are capable of when they have money to throw around. The current money-for-nothing scandal was plain corruption; they're pretty good at negligence, too.

.

the Reagan comment is a strawman, I'm sure you know what that means. I never brought up Reagan in any of my comments.

The bottom line is that the Canadian firearms registry was and remains to be a fiscal failure, among other failures. With a 1.9 Billion dollar (CDN) overrun, what percentage of firearms owners do you think actually complied with this registry? How much are you willing to pay to have 100% compliance?

the Reagan comment is a strawman, I'm sure you know what that means. I never brought up Reagan in any of my comments.

Do you have any clue what the straw person argument actually IS?

When someone pretends that another person made another argument that s/he did not make, and cleverly demolishes that argument, THAT -- the argument that the other person did not make -- is a straw person.

Why you persist in calling analogies straw people is just beyond me.

In this instance, a straw person might look like this:

you: A firearms registry would be too expensive.

someone else: Oh, so you're saying that the space program is not too expensive. Let me show you that it is. <demonstration ensues; q.e.d.> There, I've proved that you're wrong about the firearms registry.

You would be absolutely correct to say that you never said that the space program is not too expensive, and that your claim had in no way been refuted.

This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with argument by analogy.

You based your claim -- that a firearms registry would be too expensive and therefore should not be adopted -- on a single instance of a too-expensive firearms registry.

You have been asked whether you would claim that toilet seats are too expensive and therefore should not be adopted based on a single instance of a too-expensive toilet seat.

One may presume that you would not reject toilet seats on the basis that the US government paid too much for them, since we all know that toilet seats can be had for much less than it paid.

One may therefore reject your argument that a firearms registry is unacceptable to the extent that it is based on the fact that the Canadian government paid too much for one, since we all know that a firearms registry can be had for much less than it paid.

If you have some OTHER argument to present against a firearms registry, you remain perfectly free to make it.

But unless and until you reject toilet seats because one government paid too much for them, your rejection of a firearms registry because one government paid too much for one cannot be viewed as sincere, and it can simply be disregarded. YOU obviously do not think that what a government paid for something is grounds for rejecting it, so why should anyone pay any attention to you when you say it?

You are arguing:

A government paid too much for a firearms registry.
Therefore a firearms registry is bad.

... when you are NOT arguing:

A government paid too much for a toilet seat.
Therefore toilet seats are bad.

... so YOU obviously DO NOT think that a thing is bad simply because a government pays too much for it, and obviously DO think that a thing can be good even if a government pays too much for it.

So what YOU have produced is a red herring. What a government pays for something, where it was not necessary to pay as much as it paid, is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether the thing is good or bad.

Q.E.D.

.

Reagan paid 30K for a toilet seat. That is bad.
NASA paid thousands for a hammer. That is bad.

The Canadian government has nearly paid 2 billion cdn for a program that was supposed to cost 2 million cdn. That is very bad.

Happy?

Reagan paid 30K for a toilet seat. That is bad.
NASA paid thousands for a hammer. That is bad.

The Canadian government has nearly paid 2 billion cdn
for a <firearms registry> that was supposed to cost
2 million cdn. That is very bad.

Excellent!

Now, let us assume that all facts stated are true, and see what we get.

Are toilet seats bad?
Are hammers bad?
Are firearms registries bad?

.

Are toilet seats bad? -The ones found in airports are.
Are hammers bad? -Ones that cost thousands of dollars are.
Are firearms registries bad? -The one in Canada is, for sure.

And here I thought ... nah, I didn't really.

Are toilet seats bad? -The ones found in airports are.
And they didn't cost thousands of dollars, presumably.

So it looks like price is irrelevant.

Are hammers bad? -Ones that cost thousands of dollars are.
Really? When you swing them, do they not drive nails into place?
Forgive me if I do not accept this statement entirely at face value.

In any event, the question was "are hammers bad?" -- not "are hammers that cost thousands of dollars bad?"

Are firearms registries bad? -The one in Canada is, for sure.

And so he declines the invitation to present argument, content merely to babble.

The hammer that cost thousands of dollars still drive nails into place. And a firearms registry on which a negligent government wasted too much money still keeps records of firearms.

Both do what they were designed to do. Both cost too much.

Can I assume that the US government has put all the toilet seats and hammers for which it paid too much into a big dumpster, and vowed never to buy any more? Obviously, they were no good, and others like them will also be no good no matter how little they cost ...

.

My argument is thus: the Canadian firearms registry is bad because it costs 1000 times more than originally promised.

It has failed to meet the goal of implemting a record keeping system at a low cost to Canadian taxpayers. It could work wonders keeping actual records, but I say it is a failure because it costs too damned much. Because it costs too much (not even addressing its ability to track records) I say it is a failure.

30K toilet seats are failures, too, because they cost too damned much.

Thousand dollar hammers are failures, too, because they cost too damned much.

Sheesh

My argument is thus: the Canadian firearms registry is bad because it costs 1000 times more than originally promised.

What does that have to do with whether a government should be permitted to keep records of firearms owners/ownership?

What does that have to do with whether a firearms/firearms-owner registry is a good thing?


30K toilet seats are failures, too, because they cost too damned much.
Thousand dollar hammers are failures, too, because they cost too damned much.

And that, of course, is just plain silly.

$30K toilet seats still hold bums, and $1k hammers still drive nails. They are very obviously NOT failures.

The government policy/program that led to their purchase is a failure -- to some degree. Since it led to bums having somewhere to sit on toilets, and nails having something to be driven with, one might more accurately call it a partial success.

If it is a general objective of government policies/programs to achieve a particular purpose at a reasonable cost, then these particular ones are also partial failures.

They succeeded in the objective of acquiring items useful/used for a particular purpose. They failed in the objective of making wise use of funds.

The Cdn firearms registry policy/program succeeded in the objective of creating a permanent record of the firearms in the hands of individuals in Canada, and an ongoing record of transfers of those firearms. (The compliance rate is certainly within the parameters for success by which the "success" of a policy/program in this respect would ordinarily be measured.) It did so at too high a cost in dollars.

The policy/program is a partial success, and a partial failure. It succeeded by one criterion, it failed by another. Just like the policies/programs that led to the acquisition of $30K toilet seats and $1K hammers.

But the toilet seats, hammers and firearms registry themselves -- NOT the policies/programs by which they were acquired/implemented -- are successes.

They hold bums, drive nails and record firearms/firearms ownership.

It has failed to meet the goal of implemting a record keeping system at a low cost to Canadian taxpayers.

That is the goal of the policy of creating a firearms registry, and the program by which it was created.

The goal of the firearms registry is to record ownership and transfers of firearms.

It's a success.

.

"The Canadian government has nearly paid 2 billion cdn for a program that was supposed to cost 2 million cdn."

Good! And I hope they choke on it!

It's a good thing for America because the 1000% cost overrun gives us a solid example to point to, paid for with some other schmuck's money for a change, of what we never ever want to do here.

And if their kids and grandkids wind up paying for the mistake - what do we care? They'll know who to blame...

"Try to implement a database of gunowners, I dare you."
Sounds good to me. And it's hilarious for you to pretend there's any constitutional reason it can't be done.

And if you want to pretend you can't understand the $30,000 toilet seat analogy, ask Iverrglas to explain it to you. Perhaps she has more patience.

that was a rather poorly constructed strawman.

whether you want to pretend otherwise or not.

absolutely. The government keeps lists of voters, drivers, businesses of all kinds and a host of other things. Why should gun owners be any different? Especially for assault rifles and handguns, but all guns are dangerous, period. I think it's a great idea.

those other lists either.

What makes assault rifles and handguns more dangerous than shotguns and hunting/sniper rifles? I always thought it was the other way around.

I find that this is even a debate to be bizarre.

A few points:

1. The objections to the government keeping a list seem to be focused mainly on the possible misuse of such a list, i.e. widespread confiscation. I don't believe that this will ever happen, but I also don't believe that it is reasonable to reject something simply because it might be misused or misapplied. Nearly every law could be misused, but we still have lots of them.

2. Even if I agreed that being allowed to own a gun was a "right", I fail to see any evidence that it should be an unfettered right. A law to keep lists of owners and their guns has no material impact upon people's right to own guns.

3. Rejecting a list of gun owners and their weapons simply because it could possibly be used to confiscate some/all guns in the future seems tantamount to saying, "No matter what changes in society and in law occur, I'm going to keep my guns." Now, I know that's what a lot of people on here ARE saying, but that essentially means that you will definitely break a law of your own country if you happen to disagree with it, which I find odd - you don't get to pick which laws you obey.

4. A gun list might actually HELP gun owners - it seems likely that a list of guns and their owners (or vice versa) would only lead to trouble for careless and irresponsible gun owners who allowed their weapons to go missing or be misused. Removing guns from these people can only make society safer, and would help pro-gunners prove that responsible gun-owners prove no risk - at the moment, you get tarred with the same brush as any twat who shoots himself whilst cleaning his revolver.

surprise me that this debate would seem bizarre to an outsider.

It's not bizarre here. No, I don't support it. No, I won't do it. Next!

Your decisive refutation of my comments has shamed me.....Clearly my nationality renders anything I say about any other country worthless.

I'll log off now then.

P.

Or is it one of life's happy coincidences? Either way, it's brilliantly appropriate.

but thanks! I like it, and it's nice if someone else does!

:hi:

P.

but irrelevant.

Meaning British culture's relationship to firearms and individual freedoms in general and America's relationship to same are different things. I'm sure there are plenty of things about British society that I would simply not 'get' because, well, I'm an outsider!

Thank you. I understand the point that you are making here and it's totally valid, i.e. there are aspects of culture that can only be truly understood from the perspective of someone who lives within that culture.

I think that's very interesting.

However, I'd still say that it's worth considering the "outsider's" opinion, precisely because they might illustrate something that's invisible to "insiders", or because they may have totally misunderstood things due to cultural relativity.

I just don't think that it helps to write off anyone's opinions purely because of where they come from - that's the only way that you can guarantee to lose anything of worth. I'm not saying I'm right about anything, I'm saying that it's possible that I am, and possible that some of my comments might be worth considering.

I am always happy to have my view changed by new information.

Peace.

P.

I grant you that I come across as somewhat brusque sometimes.

Beer! Two of 'em! Samuel Smith's Tadcaster Oatmeal Stout for me!

:toast:

:shrug:

...confiscation. There is no other plausible reason for the government to keep a list of who owns what guns and how many, unless they intend to use that information at a later date in order to account for/seize all of the guns. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either delusional or lying to you on purpose.

There are plenty of good reasons to keep a list of gun owners....and no good reason not to.

But it sure is instructive to see our "pro gun democrats" cheering for "good government--Jeb Bush style."

And besides, confiscation of your car would not violate any of your Constitutionally guaranteed rights.