A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:56 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.
It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.
It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?
I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the
data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually
accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety?
How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What,
precisely, is its purpose?
It's exactly like a car registry.
It tells you who the rightful owner is.
So what? Why do you need to know who the "rightful owner" of a gun is?
As with being able to match a car to who the rightful owner is, this
information can be useful for any number of purposes ranging from returning
one that is stolen to the owner, to finding a starting point for
investigating a crime.
What other purposes? As for "starting point for investigating a crime,"
since the vast majority of crimes involving firearms involve firearms that
have been stolen and are being used by criminals, knowing who the firearm
belonged to before it was stolen can be accomplished through the stolen
property registries without having to register every firearm on the off
chance that it will be stolen.
As I said, the reason for car registration is not identification as much as
taxation. The license plate that comes with the registration is used for
traffic enforcement and is intended to allow identification of the car from
a distance, by a witness or police officer, in order to facilitate
apprehending a violator.
Unless you are proposing that every firearm be supplied with a 6"x10" number
plate so that convenience store clerks can identify the owner of the gun
from a distance, there is no congruence between the motor vehicle registry
and a gun registry.
Again, the actual purpose of gun registries is to give the government
information on who owns what guns and where they are. The only reason the
government needs to know this information about *every* gun is to facilitate
confiscation. There is no other legitimate purpose that cannot be better
served by only "registering" guns reported stolen.
How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?
The government has no intention of confiscating cars.
Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.
Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.
Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!
Are you fighting against that at present?
No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of
the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have
a higher level of protection against government interference.
LOL. I see.
Somehow I doubt it.
Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.
The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.
For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun?
What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as
I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government
objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to
provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like
is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere.
I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this
information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good
enough.
You never asked previously, that I can remember.
Thus far I have been trying to explain to you that the gun registry is just
a list that tells you the name of the person corresponding to the serial
number on the gun.
Indeed. But the important question is what the government plans to do with
that information.
It has not greater or lesser purpose than the registration of vehicles, a
widely accepted practice. I understand that there is a bicycle registration
available in many places. They had it here when I was a kid.
But it's VOLUNTARY. You are not compelled to register your bike. The only
reason that you're compelled to register your car is so that they can
collect use and ownership taxes. In Colorado, for example, we pay an
"ownership" tax each year on automobiles, whether we license them and drive
them on the streets or just leave them parked in our garage.
Unless the government plans to impose an "ownership tax" on firearms, the
only reason to compel registration is to facilitate confiscation. I have no
problem with voluntary registration schemes at all, but mandatory
registration served no useful purpose that outweighs the danger of using
such registries for confiscations. You may come up with specious reasons why
you think a gun registry is necessary, but the real reason is, without
exception, to provide the information required for the eventual confiscation
of firearms.
Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"
There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.
Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.
ROFL. I was not lying.
Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it?
Neither.
Sorry, but you lied, and you got caught. Now you're weaseling.
I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.
Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon
like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie.
No, Scotty.
That's a precise quote, and it is a lie.
It's like when I say "Scott Weiser is nuttier than a fruitcake."
Sorry, but you don't get off the hook by claiming hyperbole at this
juncture. Your clear claim, in context, was that one could buy a "wicked
assault weapon" at the corner convenience store with no more scrutiny or
difficulty than that of buying a pack of gum. That's a lie. You did not
qualify your statement by saying that it was your opinion that guns are too
easy to acquire at the time. Now that you've been caught, you're trying to
backpedal.
You could just admit that you were wrong.
Even though it may be easily proven (I'm assuming this is true) that there
are more nuts in a fruitcake than may actually be found on your physical
person, few people (only those who are nuttier than a fruitcake) would
interpret this as lying.
The point of my comment was to indicate that I think it is too easy to
acquire a gun.
Well, of course you do. Any ability to get a gun would be "too easy" for
you.
Are you admitting that you made a false statement?
I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.
Once again, this is specious claptrap.
No, it isn't. I really don't want those people making such decisions.
I'm sure you don't, but your delusions don't dictate public policy.
You presume wrongly that merely
because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk
killers.
No, I assume they will be normal people, only being normal people with a
gun, instead of giving someone the finger, they might shoot someone instead.
Not good.
And yet you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is any credible
risk...because it's not.
Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.
Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?
Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate
negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do,
and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are
convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing
someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for
shooting someone with a gun.
I think you are stretching the definition of "murder" pretty far there
Scotty!
Not at all. Deliberately engaging in conduct that results in the death of
another human being that is not permitted by law is murder. What degree of
murder it is is determined by the circumstances and mens rea, but it's all
murder.
I'll ask it another way.
What is the ratio of people who aimed their car at someone else with the
intent to kill them and succeeded vs the number of people who aimed their
gun at someone else with tthe intent to kill them and succeeded?
What's the ratio of otherwise law-abiding citizens with no prior history of
criminal violence randomly going berserk and shooting someone with their
lawfully-carried firearm to known violent felons shooting people with
stolen, illegally possessed firearms.
I don't know the exact numbers, but if it's less than 50 million to one I'd
be very surprised
The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.
An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.
Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots.
Since an idiot test is not required before buying the gun, your point is
moot. Remember, you managed to get one.
Indeed. Not only that, but I got my CCW permit (the tenth issued) from a
Sheriff who previously didn't issue them to ANYONE, after a detailed
background investigation.
Oh, by the way, "idiots" cannot buy firearms legally, federal and state law
prohibits it.
I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need
It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need.
How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just
because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally.
Well Scotty, I believe you made the initial accusation that I wouldn't lift
a finger to help someone in need. It turns out I help people in need as a
daily routine.
Wiping up feces at the nursing home is not the same thing as putting your
life at risk to protect others.
I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.
It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to
you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information.
I didn't ask you about the Bill of Rights.
I asked you why assault weapons are needed.
And I've explained it to you several times. Go look it up.
I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.
The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits,
wear it.
Well Scotty, I'm not a criminal, but someone who admits to having delusions
of grandeur about being a gun-toting superhero (and actually carries a gun
hoping to make the fantasy come true!) is very scary indeed.
I said "need." You may, of course, be as paranoid as your medication allows.
I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your
idiotic ramblings.
Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish.
No chains on me.
The cops are 100% clear that lives are endangered by goofs like you walking
around hoping to shoot someone and be a hero.
They're wrong. What makes you think cops are infallible?
Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.
The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.
They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us,
we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up
there in Canada.
LOL. So all cops in the US want goofs like you walking around with concealed
weapons?
Most line cops in the US, at least outside of the leftist liberal bastions
like New York, Chicago and LA understand that armed citizens benefit the
community and pose no credible risk to police officers. I've been in contact
with police officers on numerous occasions and not one of them has shown
your sort of paranoia when I tell them I'm carrying a weapon. Not everybody
lives in your paranoid, delusional world. Most cops live in the real world
and understand their place in society quite well, and they respect and
appreciate citizens who are willing to step up and fulfill their duties to
society.
And yes, they don't have a problem with "goofs" like me because they know
that we pose no risk to them, are indeed likely to assist and defend them at
need, and serve as a potent deterrent to criminals, which makes the cop's
job easier.
If it would be safer here with goofs like you walking around with concealed
weapons, why wouldn't the police say so?
Because in Canada there is a political predilection towards tyranny, and the
police, as I said, are enamored of their own opinions and they think that
THEY are in charge, and that citizens exist to obey them.
Sir Robert Peel puts it best: "To maintain at all times a relationship with
the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are
the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of
the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and
existence."
It must be some sort of national
conspiracy, perhaps Fidel Castro is behind it.
It is indeed a national conspiracy, and given Canada's distinctly leftist
leanings, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Castro had something to do with
it.
Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American.
I'm free from goofs like you, which makes being Canadian even sweeter than
it already is. The more I hear from you, the more happy and grateful I am to
be Canadian.
The hilarious thing is that you really think that just because you have
anti-gun laws you're "safe" from guns. But, I'm in agreement with you that
it's a good thing you're a Canadian.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser