In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

But I'm not OK with a registry.

 

Why not?

A registry is absolutely essential to being able to prevent private sales that let the guns slip into criminals hands. There is literally no point to have things like background checks but no registry, because that would only catch a criminal who tries to buy a gun from a retailer.

Which, as we have established, is not where they get their guns.

 

 

 

Plus, did I mistake you or did you approve of opening up mental health information so that mentally unstable people can't buy guns?

If so, it'd be quite bizarre. It'd be saying "my right to privacy in whether I own a gun is more important than the right to privacy of anyone who ever visited a shrink".

 

Sorry, for the late reply.

 

If you saw an earlier post of mine.  I'm OK with being required through a fire arms ID fully vetted; criminal, medical, mental to purchase.  

You need an ID to buy booze but they don't take your name and what you bought.

You need medical/mental health signoff to maintain a pilots license

So a combination of these of OK for guns and ammo.

Once the government tracks something they can come get it once they change the law, its a slippery slope concern.  So I maintain its none of their business.

This type gun ID would slow down the movement of guns to the black market as unlicensed people couldn't feed the balck market unless thye broke the law and onece they broke the law they will eventually get caught.  Sting operations would be good for that.

 

 

 

Ok, but I'm not talking about "government tracking" beyond that minimum: Registering each sale of gun & ammo.

We don't need searches or harassment. Just the fact hanging over your head that if you're the last registered purchaser of a gun or ammo that ends up at a crime scene, you face criminal charges.

That would severely cut into the flow of weapons into the black market. Over time, the black market supply would dry up as police seize weapons, as weapons are discarded post-crime, as weapons eventually break down.

Yes, there is still some government monitoring. But it seems extremely minimal to me compared to the problem (most per capita gun violence on earth) and the importance of the privacy at interest.

 

 

On that latter point: Unless you are criminally possessing a firearm, the government already knows you have at least one. You must have a permit or at the least an FID card. What, exactly, is threatened if they know not simply that you own a gun, but that it is a 0.38 ruger and that you bought it from Bob on Dec. 10, 2014?

 

 

Having the government record ownership is monitoring and it's more than I support.

 

 

State laws vary from Mass to Say NH the differences are dramatic.  So in Many states the Feds have no idea who owns what.  In those states, buying ammo is simple at Walmart with a valid ID to prove age.  In NH you can get a license to carry for $10.00 by applying at your local City/Town and it must be processed in 14 days.

 

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws.aspx

 

Important/Relevant Gun Laws - Massachusetts  RIFLES AND SHOTGUNSHANDGUNS 

Permit to Purchase FID Required Yes  

Registration of Firearms* No    

Licensing of Owner Yes   

Permit to Carry FID Required Yes

Important/Relevant Gun Laws - New Hampshire  RIFLES AND SHOTGUNSHANDGUNS 

Permit to Purchase No   

Registration of Firearms No   

Licensing of Owners No  

Permit to Carry No Yes

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Having the government record ownership is monitoring and it's more than I support

People do not get FID cards or permits to carry if they do not buy a gun. That wouldn't make sense. Unlike a drivers' license, there would literally be no other purpose.

 

("Oh, well, what if I spontaneously decide to buy a gun.....better make sure I have a FID card up to date, just in case" ??)

We're talking about a couple more details beyond the fact that you own a gun. To me, that seems like a pretty tiny sacrifice.

 

 

 Moreover, to the extent that it is a molehill intrusion into privacy, I simply cannot understand what it is you fear." What is it - exactly, now - that the government could do with this information that you fear?

 Take your guns? Well, no, again they already know that you own a gun because you at least have an FID card.

So.....what is it?

 

 

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
[QUOTE]

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Having the government record ownership is monitoring and it's more than I support

People do not get FID cards or permits to carry if they do not buy a gun. That wouldn't make sense. Unlike a drivers' license, there would literally be no other purpose.

True in a state like Mass, but not required in NH.   If you want to drive then you get a license even if you live in the city and only rent a Zipcar a few times a year.  If you want to own a gun or for that matter wanted to go to a gun range and rent a gun to shoot I propose having an FID would be a good compromise on the need to enact some legislation.  If you weren't interested in such an activity then you wouldn't get one.

 

("Oh, well, what if I spontaneously decide to buy a gun.....better make sure I have a FID card up to date, just in case" ??)

Yes as proposed per above, otherwise in states like NH go head and make a purchase when ever you want.

We're talking about a couple more details beyond the fact that you own a gun. To me, that seems like a pretty tiny sacrifice.

 ...but a scarifice all the same; not much of one ion Mass but in other states a slippery slope; .............Live Free or Die.

 

 Moreover, to the extent that it is a molehill intrusion into privacy, I simply cannot understand what it is you fear." What is it - exactly, now - that the government could do with this information that you fear?

It's the fear that things change and once its registered, its an easy law change to require turining it in.

Take your guns?

Possibly, all it takes is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings.

Well, no, again they already know that you own a gun because you at least have an FID card.

In my use of an FID they wouldn't know what you owned, if anything only that you passed the tests to allow ownership.

So.....what is it?

I think I explained.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

Case in point.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Whoa there. Are we forgetting all our other discussions on the issue?

Heller makes clear: The government cannot take your guns, even if there is "is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings."

Nevermind that the pendulum did swing, there was a percentage change in voting, and the party whom you fear might take your guns isn't proposing anything of the sort.

 

So,

1. You are afraid the government will take your guns, though this would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment;

2. You are afraid that if government wanted to take your guns, it wouldn't be able to if all it knew is that you almost certainly have a gun because you have an FID card or permit....

....but somehow, government could take your guns if it knew that it was a 0.38 you owned?

 

 

 

 

What I'm hearing is that even though we have the most gun violence in the world, the most mass shootings in the world, etc etc etc., you would prefer us to remain that way out of night terrors to the effect that government will decide to take your guns and will be able to do so if they know not only that you have a permit, but that you bought a 0.38....   

If they didn't know that you bought a specific gun, then government couldn't take your guns if it wanted to (nevermind it can't) ????

 

Come on now, let's be realistic.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

So there's one person who got a license despite not owning a gun, for some unknowable reason. That is not a case in point. That is a case, yes, but there's no point given the debate thus far

So in your "government coming to take my guns scenario," they go to his house
and find no gun.

How does that prevent them from taking guns from all the other houses that had permits or FID cards?

More importantly, why would telling the government that you bought a 0.38 on 1/1/12 not protect you from having your guns taken, but telling them only enough to get an FID would? That's the problem with your reason for opposing gun registration.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Moreover, to the extent that it is a molehill intrusion into privacy, I simply cannot understand what it is you fear." What is it - exactly, now - that the government could do with this information that you fear?

 

It's the fear that things change and once its registered, its an easy law change to require turining it in.

Take your guns?

Possibly, all it takes is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings.

Well, no, again they already know that you own a gun because you at least have an FID card.

In my use of an FID they wouldn't know what you owned, if anything only that you passed the tests to allow ownership.

So.....what is it?

I think I explained.

 

Whoa there. Are we forgetting all our other discussions on the issue?

 

Heller makes clear: The government cannot take your guns, even if there is "is a couple of percent change in voting and the pendulum swings."

Nevermind that the pendulum did swing, there was a percentage change in voting, and the party whom you fear might take your guns isn't proposing anything of the sort.

 

So,

1. You are afraid the government will take your guns, though this would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment;

2. You are afraid that if government wanted to take your guns, it wouldn't be able to if all it knew is that you almost certainly have a gun because you have an FID card or permit....

....but somehow, government could take your guns if it knew that it was a 0.38 you owned?

 

 

 

 

What I'm hearing is that even though we have the most gun violence in the world, the most mass shootings in the world, etc etc etc., you would prefer us to remain that way out of night terrors to the effect that government will decide to take your guns and will be able to do so if they know not only that you have a permit, but that you bought a 0.38....   

If they didn't know that you bought a specific gun, then government couldn't take your guns if it wanted to (nevermind it can't) ????

 

Come on now, let's be realistic.

 

 

Look we have varying degrees of gun control which prevent ownership of some types weapons of weapons.  In NH 10,000 people own automatic weapons the highest per capita in the US, while many states don’t allow the ownership of automatic weapons.

 

http://www.pressherald.com/news/NH-machine-gun-ownership-spikes-.html

 

 

There are a number of efforts under way to ban certain weapons nationally; automatic, semi automatic, and various high capacity magazines down to 10 or more rounds.  Most of the legislation discussions all say grandfather existing weapons/magazines but ban new manufacture and sale of certain types.  Well if you own a certain type of now banned weapon it only takes another change in the law to say that banned weapons of course need to be taken out of circulation.  That of course (note heavy sarcasm) wouldn’t be an assault on the 2^nd Amendment, just a cleanup act of removing already banned weapons from circulation.

 The government has various ways of getting what it wants; legislation, legislation from the bench, executive orders, regulations, and Amendments to the Constitution.  Recently the government legislated ACA without a plurality of support, it was fought by 28 States and SCOTUS resolved it by avoiding the commerce clause challenge and proceeded to answer a question it wasn't asked and then it gave us ACA.  

The same could happen to go after guns, so I'm not interested in supporting an effort I don't believe in.  So that's the reality I live in.

It's just a slippery slope, once the citizens give in, each individual take is easier to get. 

Joe, I understand your slippery slope fears.

For example, even if I thought that waterboarding was not torture, I might still oppose it on slippery slope grounds.

What I don't understand is how your slippery slope fears apply to the proposal to give government essentially cumulative information: Not simply that you almost certainly own guns and ammo, but which particular guns.

I just don't see how this enables government to do anything that it could not already do if it so chose.

At most it would make it a bit easier to enforce, say, a no-grandfather assault weapons ban that you note. But it's not like it is necessary for the government to carry it out if it so chose. Nevermind that the prior ban grandfathered in already-sold weapons, nevermind that those favoring a ban are in a clear minority, nevermind that nothing Obama proposed even hints at a ban.

Balance the apparrent non-risk, and the very obviousy real effect on legal guns/ammo going black market that a registry plus criminalization of failure to register would have.....

...and I obviously reach a different conclusion.

 

 

I'm also open to suggestions on mental health, but I think its a very fine line. If you set the bar too low for, say, psychiatrists to report potential threats, then people aren't going to go to a psychiatrist.

It's like if you required lawyers to disclose it if their client admitted guilt. You'd defeat the whole purpose of having lawyers in the first place.

So maybe background checks that turn up proof you were committed.... 

But just how many of the present shooters would have been caught with that? None. At most, these people were described others as a "bit odd." Can we really put that tool in your average person's hands? Report someone you think is a bit odd if you want to see them comitted? No potential for abuse there... 

Or the soldier with PTSD who shot the seal in the shooting range the other day. He had been in a hospital a couple times. But think from his perspective: If he knows he likes guns and wants to be able to use them, knows he has mental issues from the war, and also knows that if he goes to get help for those issues he won't be able to go to a shooting range anymore....

...is he going to go to the hospital? No? And if he doesn't go, aren't his problems more likely to get even worse?

I think focusing on mental health is not going to help prevent these shootings. Not unless someone comes up with another approach.

And if you're worried about slippery slopes with a gun/ammo registry, how can you not be on this front?

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Every law is a possible slippery slope...  The argument goes no where except to reveal that some folks are truly paranoid: the government has a secret plan to disarm the nation!  

Every time we pass a law to address a social concern someone's rights are clipped while others are often expanded.  I like my right to life and I value it more than your right to possess any deadly weapon that tickles your fancy.  And it is not just me, those kids that were killed and the future kids that will be killed and all the other innocent victims of gun violence deserved or deserve that right to life too.  We are already on a slippery slope in terms of gun violence.  Yet you don't seem to care.  Guns are more important... Property rights are more important than the right to life...

This post has been removed.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

Whether that matters depends on who's doing the talking....

 

By which I mean that my strong defense of slomag's suggestion: In addition to background checks, have a registry and make it a serious criminal offense not to register a sale...

..is not aimed at preventing Sandy Hook. It's aimed at reducing gun violence generally. It would seriously choke the flow of legally purchased weapons through the black market to criminals.

In ten or twenty years, you'd see far less gun violence because the criminals would have a very hard time getting guns, compared to now, when they can just send a friend without record to a gun show to pick something up for them...etc...or just buy it on the street....trade drugs for it...etc.

This post has been removed.

Well, not that it will do much good, but perhaps over the weekend I'll write in to a number of reps.

For gun violence generally, what I said above in this thread.

 

For mass shootings, what was worked out in another thread: one or two cops in each K-12, paid for with a tax on guns/ammo. Not sure whether one time sales tax, or yearly 'tax'. Guns/ammo are the problem, but they aren't going away, so like car insurance...

...you own the dangerous implememnt, you pay to insure against yourself causing harm and against harm caused by others.

 

 

Still a complete solution? No, but would help without stepping all over "freedoms"

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

Point of perspective if you are in the small government self reliance camp.  Every law enacted which restricts your personal rights is a slippery slope, unless you are in the big government nannystate camp.

I don't think its being paranoid to question laws that restrict Constitutional or individual rights. I don't like the seat belt law nor motorcycle helmet but I use them.  I don't like the idea of infringement on my gun rights whether I have one or not.  My legal use of a gun isn't a problem, its the illegal uses of guns that are problems.

...and yes there are those who would disarm the nation like England.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 We don't have the most violence in the world.  I'm not even sure we have the most gun violence inthe world.  In fact, I would go so far to say that if you factor out the inner city gun violence, the U.S. is an incredibly restrained country, largely due to gun ownership.

So, given that, why won't you focus on the real problem, inner city gun violence, and leave those of us trying to protect ourselves alone?

Or, am I being too realistic?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

I see documentation of transactions a real slippery slope leading to a registry which can be used later to confiscate the next time the law changes.

Laws requiring the transaction of gun sales to be accomplished by "qualified" say FID holders would be OK; just don't have the transaction registered.  That requirement for an FID alone is a major concession in most states.  Increase the penalty for transfering guns to unauthorized people, use ATF to run untold numbers of sting operations  great, just like checking up on liquor sales to those under age.  I'm all for reasonable mandated training requirements to have an FID, this would be about safety as opposed to using a FID as a registry/control device.

Yes there is a slippery slope probelm with mental health issues being divulged to big brother to check/update someone's FID status.  Your idea sounds like a start but of course the American Sniper shooting still demonstrates the risk of emotionally damaged people.

These suggestions might not have stopped Sandy Hook, but they would have helped in some mass shootings.  In Columbine, the guns were purchased illegally, and the ammo at a local K-Mart.  The Seal Beach shooter had failed a background check, and was legally prohibited from owning fire-arms.

Some of the other legal firearm mass-shootings leave you scratching your head - how does a guy like the Sikh Temple shooter get to own a gun?  A guy dishonerably discharged from the Army, with DUIs and ties to white supremacy groups?  Maybe background checks should not just be pass / fail - if you have a guy who technically passes, but looks like trouble, maybe it's OK if he's in a separate category from the scared house-wife.  If a guy like that places an order for 10K rounds of ammo, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the authorities are on alert.

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Sloganeering? Come on, now...  

 

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

The right is not unlimited. The Supreme Court made clear that reasonable restrictions are fine.

 

 

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

 

And the regulations here discused would reduce illegal uses of guns.

We already have laws against illegal possession, against murder. Clearly those laws aren't enough.

 

 

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

 

And since there's no way that's happening, citing it is either a red herring or a paranoid delusion, depending on your intent.

 

 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, you haven't explained:

- How the laws discussed here would prevent or even restrict your 'legal use'.

- How government can't take your guns if you get an FID card, but can if you register your purchase.

 

 

This isn't a legitimate concern. It appears all it comes down to is your initial idealogical sloganeering:

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

The fears you expressed here are born only of the fact that you have labeled your opposition. That's why you haven't come up with logical bases of your fears.

Just a vague paranoid "slippery slope" reference....and use of political curse words "big government nannystate camp".

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

That's because you are being paranoid and irrational. You are doing this because you have already decided that your opponents are "big government nannystate camp" people.

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

 

Major concession? I'm not talking about political gimmickery, or what NRA brownnoses in a certain party would say. I'm talking about what might actually work.

You know, if we actually care about gun violence...   

The right to bear arms is strong, but it isn't limitless. And it most certainly isn't sacred.

In response to slomag's comment:

Until this country goes back to locking up the crazies, it makes no sense to do anything.  Eliminate guns, they will build fertilizer bombs.  Eliminate fertilizer, they will grab machettes. Eliminate machettes, they will use a car and mow people down.

the problem is not the tool, the problem is the crazies.  For the most part, these crazies are known to people, counselors, parents, others, to be lit-fuse bombs.

Let's start with solving this problem.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Why would I factor out the biggest target of the very laws I'm discussing?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

No, you are being your typical ankle-biting ret@rded self. Fortunately, the ignore button has returned. Bye again!

Have fun trying to annoy-a-lib!

This post has been removed.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

No.  The problem is that crazies and people who are not crazy misuse the dangerous instrumentality (gun) that is too prevalent in our society.  Other countries which have real gun control have a lower overall homicide rate.  A gun makes killing (homicide, suicides and accidents) much too easy to accomplish.  Let's start solving ALL of the problem: address crazies (and criminals) as part of the problem and the most dangerous of these weapons as another part.