It's really simple; if gun purchases are registered then the government knows where they are.  If the laws change; they look at the list and come get them.

I'm a very strong supporter of personal rights, and avoid government oversight whenever I can.

You mean like how difficult it is to get illegal drugs??

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

You mean like how difficult it is to get illegal drugs??

Yeah I suppose there are lots of illegal gun manufacturing factories around here....  

And of course, it's as easy to ship massive heavy crates full of guns as it is to have people swallow condoms of heroin and bring it in without detection... 

In other words: God-awful analogy.

Guns can be shipped in crates pretty easily my friend!! Its a big world and about a 5% of containers are actually searched!

In response to tvoter's comment:

Guns can be shipped in crates pretty easily my friend!! Its a big world and about a 5% of containers are actually searched!

Oh, the rank defeatism.

Why aren't you advocating for a repeal of all laws and closure of all prisons? Clearly they aren't stopping criminals from committing crimes.

there are millions of illegal guns out there.

You're right laws aren't stopping criminals from committing crimes. No law stops a criminal. If it did there'd be no need for prisons. But that doesn't mean we should get rid of laws. That's just plain silly

Now how will this stop those who do mass shootings that have valid gun permits and legal guns? Many of the mass shootings have been done with legally bought guns and ammo.

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's not since mass shootings has been the argument for banning assault rifles especially since assault rifles are rarely used in most gun related deaths.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

It's really simple; if gun purchases are registered then the government knows where they are.  If the laws change; they look at the list and come get them.

 

Unless you are in illegal possession of firearms, the government already knows where they are!

What is so hard about this? They. Already. Know.

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

I'm a very strong supporter of personal rights, and avoid government oversight whenever I can.

 

My job is to fight tooth and nail for people's individual rights, so the above statement doesn't really mean all that much.

In NH like many other states you don't need an FID to purchase guns/ammo.  You can purchase a gun from a gun shop, a pawn shop or a private individual.  I can get a 20 shot 9mm clip sent to me via FedEx.

In response to miscricket's comment:

 

 

So..( and pardon my ignorance in terms of guns)...are you saying that a 9mm handgun could do the same kind of damage..in other words..gun down and kill 26 people in a matter of minutes?

Yes, as the V Tech shooting attests to. It takes no more than 10 seconds to drop a clip and put another one in for a semi-auto handgun. The V Tech shooter had 5 ten round magazines for the 9mm and additional clips for his .22 semi-auto and killed 33 and wounded 23. 

I think getting rid of guns like the Bushmaster is a start. I also think that more comprehensive background checks would make a difference. I don't like to place blame on a victim..but the reality is this: Mrs. Lanza..knowing her son had mental issues..should either not have had those guns in the home..or should have had them locked up more securely. One of my issues with the NRA is that they don't even support education on safety anymore.

Mrs Lanza is totally at fault for not locking her guns. My dad owned guns and kept them locked up. He wasn't told he had to...it was common sense to my dad. You have kids in the house you lock the damn guns up. Even if you don't have kids they should be locked up in case your home gets broken into.

 

I don't think that either of the above are intrusive or burdensome...especially in an age where we are fingerprinting teachers and running FBI background checks on them as a condition of employment.

I agree neither is intrusive or burdensome. Do both. Just don't expect that mass shootings are going to stop as a result of these changes. That's all I'm saying

 

 

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

 

In response to miscricket's comment:

 

 

So we should do nothing? Then what..? There has to be common sense..holistic solution that everyone can agree with. 80 percent of NRA members support stricter back ground checks. A stricter background check may have revealed that there was someone with a mental illness in the household..who clearly had access to the guns.

 

No one is arguing that we need to address the mental health issues. Adam Lanza's mother was trying to have her son committed and she was getting very little support from the "professionals" who basically told her the system would not help until he was arrested for committing a crime. This is all too common..and there is something fundamentally wrong in that.

That being said..would you agree that no one needs to own a bushmaster..? These things should not even be on the market.

 

Not saying we shouldn't do anything. Just saying not to have unrealistic expectations about it.

 

Sure, no one needs a bushmaster. But that's far from the only gun that has ever been used in mass shootings. Everyone is freaked out and concentrates on getting rid of guns like the bushmaster. Hell, 9mm handguns have been used to kill a hell of a lot more civilians than bushmaster's ever have. So why, if deaths are the main reason, are we in such a tizzy over bushmaster type guns and not 9mm handguns??? I find this confusing. Non-assault weapons have been used in about 75% of mass shootings....yet all people seem to be concerned about is assault weapons. Why is that? How about the fact that the most deaths (33) from a mass shooting (V Tech) happened with a 9mm and .22 handguns. 

 

 

So..( and pardon my ignorance in terms of guns)...are you saying that a 9mm handgun could do the same kind of damage..in other words..gun down and kill 26 people in a matter of minutes?

 

I think getting rid of guns like the Bushmaster is a start. I also think that more comprehensive background checks would make a difference. I don't like to place blame on a victim..but the reality is this: Mrs. Lanza..knowing her son had mental issues..should either not have had those guns in the home..or should have had them locked up more securely. One of my issues with the NRA is that they don't even support education on safety anymore.

I don't think that either of the above are intrusive or burdensome...especially in an age where we are fingerprinting teachers and running FBI background checks on them as a condition of employment.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

It's not since mass shootings has been the argument for banning assault riflesespecially since assault rifles are rarely used in most gun related deaths.

 

Slomag's suggestions have nothing to do with assault rifles, nor did he ever indicate his proposals were aimed exclusively at mass shootings!

We are talking about slomag's suggestions in this thread.

See the OP! See all the posts!

 

 

 

All you're doing right now is  objecting to what I'm saying on this topic....

...based on what someone else said about a different topic.

 

Oh....didn't realize we are restricted to ONLY talking about slomag's proposal. My bad. And here I thought conversations were supposed to be ever evolving. 

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

still not effect people breaking the law.

 

Of course they will! Have you not been following?

The point is NOT that the law criminalizing failure to register will "effect people breaking the law" directly. It's that it will make it way harder for those people to get guns in the first place!

 

 

If I am going to be sent to jail for reselling a gun to someone without registering the sale, then I won't resell the gun to someone without registering the sale.

If I register the sale, and that gun is linked to a no-suspect shooting, guess who the suspect is: The next buyer.

The point is to cut off the flow of guns to the people who do end up using them illegally. Where do you think these people are getting the guns? Are they all stolen from gun shops? NO! They were once legal guns.

 

And if I don't register the sale, and the gun is linked to a shooting, I'll be charged with a crime. The pressure will then be on me to rat out who I sold it to. That person will be the suspect in the shooting, or the guy who sold the gun again to the suspect.

And so on.

It provides a way to choke the flow of weapons from legal to black markets, with the added bonus that it provides a means to find out who committed shootings where the suspect isn't otherwise caught.

 

 

So I see registration as the first step to further restriction and confiscation; history shows us that its happened before.

 

In which country? Huh?

Again, all I can see is paranoia, not logic, driving your fears about having to register your guns.

Whether you have to register or not, if there is such a sea change in popular opinion that government comes for everyone's guns........the fact that you have an FID card, not a registration number, is not going to protect your guns.

I really don't understand why you aren't grasping that part of things. If the world turns upside down, the 2nd Amd. is repealed, and government really does start confiscating all guns.....      

...it doesn't matter whether you have FID vs. registration!

Did government raid everyone's house when prohibition went into effect? NO! They raided places suspected of continuing to serve booze. They checked suspicious cars.

You'd be in the same position as an individual making bathtub gin during prohibition, regardless of FID or registration.....        sorry, that is not a logical slippery slope.

But that isn't going to happen. See: Paranoia.

 

It's really simple; if gun purchases are registered then the government knows where they are.  If the laws change; they look at the list and come get them.

 

If there isn't a registry it's more like your prohibition example where they didn't knock on doors.

I'm a very strong supporter of personal rights, and avoid government oversight whenever I can.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

 

In response to miscricket's comment:

 

 

So..( and pardon my ignorance in terms of guns)...are you saying that a 9mm handgun could do the same kind of damage..in other words..gun down and kill 26 people in a matter of minutes?

Yes, as the V Tech shooting attests to. It takes no more than 10 seconds to drop a clip and put another one in for a semi-auto handgun. The V Tech shooter had 5 ten round magazines for the 9mm and additional clips for his .22 semi-auto and killed 33 and wounded 23. 

I think getting rid of guns like the Bushmaster is a start. I also think that more comprehensive background checks would make a difference. I don't like to place blame on a victim..but the reality is this: Mrs. Lanza..knowing her son had mental issues..should either not have had those guns in the home..or should have had them locked up more securely. One of my issues with the NRA is that they don't even support education on safety anymore.

Mrs Lanza is totally at fault for not locking her guns. My dad owned guns and kept them locked up. He wasn't told he had to...it was common sense to my dad. You have kids in the house you lock the damn guns up. Even if you don't have kids they should be locked up in case your home gets broken into.

 

I don't think that either of the above are intrusive or burdensome...especially in an age where we are fingerprinting teachers and running FBI background checks on them as a condition of employment.

I agree neither is intrusive or burdensome. Do both. Just don't expect that mass shootings are going to stop as a result of these changes. That's all I'm saying

 

 

 

Okay.. I see your point...but would you agree that as a society we have to do something..try something..to reduce the number of deaths from mass murders? I think the things I mentioned are a start.

 

Nothing will eliminate these things..just like tougher drunk driving laws don't eliminate drunk driving...but we have an obligation to try to reduce deaths from gun violence. Even if one life is saved..it is worth it.