As Ieyasu pointed out this gentleman is clearly anti-gun. This doctor claims to be pro-gun control but not anti-gun and yet every argument he makes is clearly arguing to take guns from innocent citizens. Perhaps it is because he realizes one simple fact, to remove firearms from the criminals one must remove firearms from all people.
The simple fact is that all people are potential criminals. Just because a person didn't break the law yesterday does not mean that person will not break the law tomorrow. One problem with that is a free society is based on the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Placing controls on the purchase and ownership of firearms means that this is not a free society.
There is the old adage "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". A free society must have limits to protect the freedoms of others. That means I am not free to take your property, or take your life. Firearm registration is almost always a prelude to confiscation. Saying otherwise shows one is ignorant of history.
On my rifle there is a serial number. There is also one on my car, TV, oven, and any of a number of valuable items in my home. One argument of firearm registration is to deter theft and prove ownership. Why is it then that I was not required to register my oven with the government? What about my TV, or laptop? I don't know specifics but I imagine more laptops are stolen or lost every day than firearms.
I had my bicycle stolen when I was in college. Since I had the serial number recorded I was able to recover it when it was reported to the police. What makes my rifle so much different than my bicycle? Can't I simply keep the serial number written down in a safe place to prevent criminals from having my rifle, just like I did with my bicycle? The police don't need to know, and shouldn't care, what the serial number is until I report it stolen to them.
That is, of course, unless there is another motivation to keeping the serial numbers of my legally owned firearms on file than to deter theft.
Continuing with the theft idea lets take this from another angle. Criminals like to brandish firearms during a theft to assure compliance. That is if one is to steal an item physically. One can also steal with a falsified document, a more virtual theft. Does that mean typewriters, printers, and even pencils need to be registered?
Oh, but our right to speak is protected by the First Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But then I look at the Second Amendment...
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I see "right of the people" in both. How did the definition of "right" and "people" change from one paragraph to the next?
Also, can someone explain to me how Selective Service does not meet the definition of "militia"? I ask about Selective Service because even if one is to make the claim that only the militia is granted the right to keep and bear arms then shouldn't proving Selective Service registration be sufficient to purchase and carry a firearm?
Getting back to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. I have a simple solution, "uninvent" the firearm. So long as firearms exist criminals will steal them, buy them under false pretenses, or construct them from plumbing pipe and scrap metal.
Let's go back to those peaceful times before firearms existed. You know, like feudal Japan. Where an Emperor's soldier could take the head off of a farmer that looked at them in a way he didn't like without fear of punishment.
Perhaps we should look to the glorious days of knights in shining armor. Where peasants would be killed on sight for hunting the king's venison. Where punishment for having a bow could mean losing fingers so that a bow could not be drawn against the king's men or fauna.
Let's not forget that Japan tried to uninvent the firearm. The emperor would buy off gunsmiths to convince them to not make any firearms and pursue other trades such as sword smithing or making clocks. Refusal would generally lead to imprisonment, torture, or death... sometimes all three. The ban on firearms ended quite quickly when they realized that not arming themselves with such effective weapons put them at the mercy of those that did have firearms.
I'm not sure who said this originally but I find it quite appropriate at this time...
"Those that beat their swords into plowshares plows for the one that did not."
