Here's where the gun debate should go!

[peggy]

The Canadians just abandoned their longgun registry, as it was costing them a lot of money, not solving any crimes, and not preventing any crimes, to a first approximation. New Zealand went through the same experience in the 1980s.

Adding the element of blaming the victim of a crime for having their gun stolen and not doing proper paperwork is just mean-spirited. And considering that at the moment we have trouble bothering to charge actual criminals for actual violations of firearms laws, it seems just another "well-intentioned" law that will clutter up the books, entrap innocent parties, and cost us all a lot of money.

How about we simply tack on 20 years mandatory sentencing ehnancement for crimes of violence committed with a firearm?

How is expecting someone who has their gun stolen to report it to the authorities mean spirited? Is it mean spirited to expect people to report a car accident? Is it mean spirited for insurance companies to expect you to report your stolen gold watch and furs if you want to make a claim? You know, if your house is robbed, I'm guessing you are reporting it anyways, aren't you. That argument is totally bogus. And if there were national registrations on all sales, you bet your butt someone who had his gun stolen would report it, unless he was the one who sold it to a criminal, which is the point. If all guns used in crimes could be traced back to the last owner, I'm guessing fewer people with lily white records would be buying legally then selling to criminals.
Long guns? Now you're jumping back to rifles and shotguns? i thought you wanted to talk about handguns.
Sure, it would cost more to set up and run this registry, but probably not as much as 20 extra years in prison for the criminal who used a firearm. Besides, I'm thinking of stopping the glut of guns in criminal hands in the first place.
Maybe Canada has stopped their hunting gun registry, but as you said, cross-cultural comparisons are not simple black and white. Besides, Canada doesn't enjoy the level of gun violence we do.

[bae]

Have you had much interaction with police, police reporting, police record keeping, and personal record keeping, Peggy?

I've had firearms for decades now. If I'd had one stolen 30 years ago, requiring me to have a piece of paper in my records now, or 20 more years from now, or be "responsible" for the actions of someone who stole it ages ago is absurd.

Any scheme requiring permanent record-keeping is absurd, for most people, and is a complication and additional burden for them.

There are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the USA, with > 10 million more new ones sold to civilians each year. The overwhelming majority of these are owned by law-abiding citizens, and not involved in crime.

Restrict and penalize the criminals, not the rest of us.

What is wrong with a twenty-year enhance sentencing requirement for violent crimes involving firearms? Seems to me that targets the criminal directly. Heck, what is wrong with sentence enhancements for violent crimes in general, to keep the bad actors off the streets in the first place?

[Rogar]

My father first took me out shooting when I was maybe 10 and as a young man was qualified at a certain level of marksmanship by NRA standards. I've been through hunter safety and hunt several times each year in the fall. So guns have been part of my upbringing. My guns were purchased for hunting and one has had an easy modification for home protection.

They don't leave my house except for hunting or maybe repair. If I lived in an area of high crime or was being stalked it might be different. Maybe my statistics would prove me wrong, but I don't worry any more about wanting a gun for protection outside them that I do about being hit by a car while crossing the street, or being hit by lightning when I'm hiking. If I were a single female living or traveling alone I'd have to reconsider. And I really have no problem with normal properly trained people carrying guns. However, for most common daily events I don't understand why people feel the need to be armed any more than they would want to wear a helmet crossing the street. I think it goes beyond rational thinking to something else.

[bae]

However, for most common daily events I don't understand why people feel the need to be armed any more than they would want to wear a helmet crossing the street. I think it goes beyond rational thinking to something else.

Perhaps you simply don't understand their personal reasoning, concerns, and situation?

By "goes beyond rational thinking to something else" presumably you mean that they are irrational in their course of action? But they well may not be.

I'll give you some specifics, which I've mentioned on the forums before:

- My wife, in her past, used to work with a federal law enforcement agency making the lives of Very Bad People very inconvenient. People with great resources, and a history of violence, and a habit of intimidating those inconveniencing them. She, and some of her family members, received anonymous threats for years as the result of this work. So she, and I, chose to be trained, aware, and armed.

- I have had several people from my professional life threatening me with violence and stalking me, sometimes years after the incident that set them off.

- My wife and I used to spend a great deal of time aiding domestic violence victims evade their partners. This now-and-then resulted in the partner deciding we were part of the problem as well. We still get contacts made from some of these Bad Folks, years later. I still am involved in these efforts, as is one of my close family members, and we still make new "friends" all the time.

- I have had relatives offer to commit violence upon myself and my family, serious enough threats that restraining orders were issued and armed guards were used to accompany some of the family.

Law enforcement response time where I live is perhaps 30 minutes on a good day, and can be several hours. And often times a single officer, with less training and experience than I or my wife have, is the only responder.

So, is it irrational to be ready for circumstance, given that the effort to do so is at this point little more than attaching my holster to my belt in the morning, along with putting my comb, pocketknife, and wallet in my pants pockets?

[Rogar]

Bae, In my book, your level of concern definitely justifies special precautions. I do not consider you irrational. However, at least among my associates, that is not a normal set of circumstances and I didn't intend the comment at the personal level.

The lack of rationality to me can delve into emotional, which may or may not be bad.

[peggy]

Perhaps you simply don't understand their personal reasoning, concerns, and situation?

By "goes beyond rational thinking to something else" presumably you mean that they are irrational in their course of action? But they well may not be.

I'll give you some specifics, which I've mentioned on the forums before:

- My wife, in her past, used to work with a federal law enforcement agency making the lives of Very Bad People very inconvenient. People with great resources, and a history of violence, and a habit of intimidating those inconveniencing them. She, and some of her family members, received anonymous threats for years as the result of this work. So she, and I, chose to be trained, aware, and armed.

- I have had several people from my professional life threatening me with violence and stalking me, sometimes years after the incident that set them off.

- My wife and I used to spend a great deal of time aiding domestic violence victims evade their partners. This now-and-then resulted in the partner deciding we were part of the problem as well. We still get contacts made from some of these Bad Folks, years later. I still am involved in these efforts, as is one of my close family members, and we still make new "friends" all the time.

- I have had relatives offer to commit violence upon myself and my family, serious enough threats that restraining orders were issued and armed guards were used to accompany some of the family.

Law enforcement response time where I live is perhaps 30 minutes on a good day, and can be several hours. And often times a single officer, with less training and experience than I or my wife have, is the only responder.

So, is it irrational to be ready for circumstance, given that the effort to do so is at this point little more than attaching my holster to my belt in the morning, along with putting my comb, pocketknife, and wallet in my pants pockets?

I think what you don't realize bae is that your situation is far and away and above and completely surreal to the average American life. Maybe you don't realize this, isolated on your island, but your situation is so abnormal to the existence of 99% of American people. Truthfully. You are out of touch dude, and you need to reacquaint yourself to the American life before you give proclamations as to 'realities' cause yours isn't normal, if what you say is true.
Maybe you need to turn off the TV or something, but American life isn't shoot outs on every street corner every week. Do you watch British TV? Do you really think there are 3 or 4 murders in Oxford every week? It's the same thing in the US. This isn't a CSI, Hawaii 5-0, kind of country. Really it isn't. Maybe you have 50 people gunning for you but most Americans don't. The vast, vast majority don't. The majority of those who stockpile guns and ammo don't. Only in their minds.

[bae]

Peggy - please spare us the insults and assumptions.

[JaneV2.0]

...

They don't leave my house except for hunting or maybe repair. If I lived in an area of high crime or was being stalked it might be different. Maybe my statistics would prove me wrong, but I don't worry any more about wanting a gun for protection outside them that I do about being hit by a car while crossing the street, or being hit by lightning when I'm hiking. If I were a single female living or traveling alone I'd have to reconsider. And I really have no problem with normal properly trained people carrying guns. However, for most common daily events I don't understand why people feel the need to be armed any more than they would want to wear a helmet crossing the street. I think it goes beyond rational thinking to something else.

I've lived alone all my adult life. I've been stalked. I've worked a variety of shifts that required me to drive or take public transportation. For a year or so, I walked to and from work late at night through downtown city streets in Portland and Seattle. I've worked alone in offices on night shifts. I've driven hundreds of miles by myself. I've never considered buying a firearm. I can dream up scenarios where doing so might be appropriate, but none that seem likely to happen at this stage of my life.

[peggy]

Have you had much interaction with police, police reporting, police record keeping, and personal record keeping, Peggy?

I've had firearms for decades now. If I'd had one stolen 30 years ago, requiring me to have a piece of paper in my records now, or 20 more years from now, or be "responsible" for the actions of someone who stole it ages ago is absurd.

Any scheme requiring permanent record-keeping is absurd, for most people, and is a complication and additional burden for them.

There are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation in the USA, with > 10 million more new ones sold to civilians each year. The overwhelming majority of these are owned by law-abiding citizens, and not involved in crime.

Restrict and penalize the criminals, not the rest of us.

What is wrong with a twenty-year enhance sentencing requirement for violent crimes involving firearms? Seems to me that targets the criminal directly. Heck, what is wrong with sentence enhancements for violent crimes in general, to keep the bad actors off the streets in the first place?

Bullsh-t! I'll bet you have records of all your business transactions dating back as far as you made them. I know I do. And the point of making gun registrations official is that there is AN OFFICIAL RECORD of the transaction. Go to your county office of records and I'll bet you can find records of your home,. who built it, who bought it, every time. Your car also has a paper trail, independent of you. How about your voting records. I'll bet you there is record of where and when you voted in the past. Keeping records of guns bought and sold is only onerous to those who wish to do it under the table. This added small task to the average gun owner/seller is a very small requirement indeed if it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. Do you sell several guns a day? Then you aren't a private gun owner/seller. You are a dealer and should be licensed anyway.
Why would you resist this? What do you have to hide anyway? Saying people can't be expected to keep records when we certainly expect them to keep records of other transactions is bogus. Quite the straw man. Really, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue to how responsible and serious and well trained gun owners are, yet, they aren't responsible enough to register a gun sale or keep records? Really? Gee, if they can't be relied upon to simply register a gun sale, and/or keep a simple paper proving that fact, why are we expecting them to be responsible with a firearm? Pretty much makes my point, doesn't it.

[dmc]

All those strict gun laws in Chicago are working well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1602692.html