Can I resume our discussion/debate?

[hnk45acp]

Timmy this happened last week in NYC.
Do you think these criminals would have gone thru a background check or registered their guns?
Some aren't even old enough to legally obtain a gun.
BTW registration DID lead to confiscation in the aftermath of Katrina

Brooklyn

***

A woman foiled an armed robbery in Park Slope by asking a bank teller to call 911, sources said.
Tyshawn Warren and Kevin White allegedly approached the 29-year-old victim at around 3:30 p.m., Monday near the corner of Smith and Warren streets, asking if she was married.
The woman tried to ignore them and walk away, but one of the men allegedly grabbed her, and the other put a weapon to her back, threatening to shoot if she didn’t withdraw $500 from a nearby Chase Bank branch.

“If you try anything, I will shoot the whole bank,” Warren allegedly snarled.
The suspects (pictured above) allegedly grabbed a 24-year-old woman’s cellphone on a Manhattan Brooklyn-bound A-train, then tried to flee, at around 9:15 p.m. on Dec. 18.
The woman walked inside and pleaded with a teller to dial 911, sources said.
Cops responded and used the victim’s description to cuff the two men, who allegedly were found in possession of marijuana, cocaine and a loaded .380 semiautomatic gun.
Both men were charged with criminal possession of a weapon, attempted robbery, menacing, attempted petit larceny and harassment.
Warren was also charged with possession of a controlled substance, while White was charged with pot possession.

Two teens are under arrest for mugging a man and stealing his iPhone at gunpoint in Clifton, authorities said.
Emmanuel Jallah, 17, and Hassan Sroura, 18, attacked the victim on Vanderbilt Avenue near Osgood Avenue at 9:30 a.m. Jan. 4, according to court documents.
Sroura punched the man in the chest, while Jallah snatched the pricey phone out of one of his pockets, the court papers state.
Only after the victim made a bid to get the phone back did Sroura pull a gun and snarl, “If you take another step, I’m gonna shoot you,” the records say.
The suspects then fled the scene, but investigators caught up with Sroura on Jan. 8 and with Jallah last Thursday.
Both were charged with robbery, grand larceny and criminal possession of a weapon, the records show.
Jallah was being held in lieu of $1,000 bail, but Sroura was released after making his $5,000 bail, the court papers state.
Two more arrested in connection with fatal August shootout in Crown Heights

 

[timmy4]

I don't think that c4v3man is equating gun owners with drug dealers, but the point he's making is that government can't control the flow of illegal drugs. They spend billions of dollars every year trying, but they're barely making a dent. Now we're going to try to spend billions more every year to control the flow of guns?



I don't understand your argument. Could you expand/clarify a bit, please?

The difference with drugs is that with guns we don't need to "control the flow" of all guns. Just the illegal ones. But in order to make it more difficult for the bad guys to obtain guns, we need the UBS and the national database.

 

[ljnowell]

Timmy, you still didnt answer my question, what would a national registry do to stop crime and mass shootings?

 

[timmy4]

But wouldn't you agree that us "law-abiding types" aren't the problem? So aren't the police going to have to be involved in controlling "criminal-trade"? How well is that working out for them?

Assuming that controlling the "law-abiding-owners" made an impact on private gun sales to criminals, what makes you think drug dealers won't start simply adding a few guns to their shipments, and sell through existing channels? Secondly, what makes you think these guns that are brought illegally into our country WON'T be full-auto weapons that are currently difficult to acquire in our country?

Yes, I acknowledge that a black market in illegal guns will likely increase as a result of what I am proposing. But while that's probably inevitable, it doesn't weaken my argument, IMO. Even with the increased black market, it will still be much more difficult for the bad guys to obtain guns than it was before.

And at very little cost! A $5-20 surcharge on each of your guns. A few inconveniences added to you, having to register and go through background checks that will occur instantaneously thanks to the internet. I'm not asking to take any of your rights away. It's a small enough price to pay for greater safety.

 

[SpazC]

The difference with drugs is that with guns we don't need to "control the flow" of all guns. Just the illegal ones. But in order to make it more difficult for the bad guys to obtain guns, we need the UBS and the national database.

Timmy,

For the most part, there are no "illegal" guns. There are people cant legally own guns, but the guns themselves are not illegal.

If a gun is illegally obtained: Stolen, or bought from the thief, how is the gun its self illegal????

 

[Constrictor]

This guy has pointed out his positions multiple times and is now doing what those under bridges do.

The facts are he says he knows banning guns will not stop crime, and when the way criminals get their guns are not part of the system we have/are putting in place the only effect these laws have is to infringe on the freedoms of law abiding citizens, and cause more deaths.

This guy is likely one of the barrage of paid posters by the regime and should be ignored after we have seen what we have seen from him.

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

National registration would be hugely expensive, pose a security risk(hackers), and only really limit the less than .001% that do intentionally "straw buy" guns for illegal resale.
It would be a a great tool for those planning future confiscations from the law abiding citizenry. There is a slippery slope; ban thirty round mags, in twenty years a mass shooting of 5 people occurs, but now the weapon is a revolver, so it'll be " Why does anyone need SIX BULLETS?!?!"
I read something recently about the 2nd Amendment and the Founding Fathers intent; the English disarmed the populace, and that amendment was to specifically protect the individual right to bear arms, not to be a National Guard soldier who can be deployed willy-nilly to any rich man's cause anywhere in the world.

BTW here is what the courts consistently say about duty to protect, regarding police.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020260745_robbrulingxml.html

 

[hnk45acp]

BTW Timmy we have registration in NYC, every day I read about crimes committed involving guns I've NEVER read about a legal gun owner committing a crime with their registered firearm. Yet day after day kids are getting killed. I live every day knowing that registration does not do a damn thing here.

 

[ATBackPackin]

The difference with drugs is that with guns we don't need to "control the flow" of all guns. Just the illegal ones. But in order to make it more difficult for the bad guys to obtain guns, we need the UBS and the national database.

Let me point out the biggest flaw in your logic.

I buy a gun legally from a gun store. Have a universal background check done and even register it in a national data base. Then two years later when my home is broken into and the criminals steal said registered gun out of my safe. Then a month later they use said registered gun in a murder. For the sake of argument lets even say the bullet pulled from the victim wasn't mangled and they were able to read the striations. Through their database they now know what gun was used.

Who has the gun? Where is the gun at? Are we any safer?

Shawn

 

[mljdeckard]

You do realize that places where they have registered guns have had little to no success using that information to prevent or solve crime? New York just de-funded their gun registry, having had massive expense with nothing to show for it. Canada just dropped theirs for near total non-compliance.

Canada just abandoned their registry.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told reporters Wednesday, hours before the vote, that the government’s actions are long overdue.

“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has it saved one Canadian life,” he said.

- http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...iasts-cheer-the-end-of-the-long-gun-registry/

It's really simple. When you know guns are registered, you use someone else's.

 

[timmy4]

Timmy, you still didnt answer my question, what would a national registry do to stop crime and mass shootings?

1. In terms of overall gun crime, it will make it significantly more difficult for bad guys to obtain legal guns through private sales. It will help police isolate illegal guns, and make these easier to seize.

2. In terms of mass shootings, it will help society keep these weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Neither of these points are foolproof. This is all about playing the percentages. Just like having to wait in lines at airports, and going through detectors, this is the price we pay for added security. It's well worth it, IMO.

 

[timmy4]

This guy has pointed out his positions multiple times and is now doing what those under bridges do.

The facts are he says he knows banning guns will not stop crime, and when the way criminals get their guns are not part of the system we have/are putting in place the only effect these laws have is to infringe on the freedoms of law abiding citizens, and cause more deaths.

This guy is likely one of the barrage of paid posters by the regime and should be ignored after we have seen what we have seen from him.

Man I wish I was paid. Sign me up for that.

 

[mljdeckard]

You keep saying 'will' when they reality is 'it might', and historically, 'it has not at all'.

 

[9MMare]

You guys are throwing away time on this guy. He's trolling the hell out of this board, whether people are getting wise to it or not.
.

Sure, I've thought so from the start.

And here's even more reason to believe so:

Now that he's wrapped up several topics, he's outlined several more he'd like to discuss. He's gotten what he needed on the original ones....like mag capacity and the use of assault weapons and the 2A as a true defense of our country....and has moved on to get info on others. Happily, I didnt see him managing to effectively counter the arguments but who knows how they'll be portrayed out of context elsewhere?

I see this as an opportunity for us to frame and practice our arguments and people are doing so very civilly and very well. But again, who knows what form our info will take when served up under another agenda?

 

[timmy4]

Let me point out the biggest flaw in your logic.

I buy a gun legally from a gun store. Have a universal background check done and even register it in a national data base. Then two years later when my home is broken into and the criminals steal said registered gun out of my safe. Then a month later they use said registered gun in a murder. For the sake of argument lets even say the bullet pulled from the victim wasn't mangled and they were able to read the striations. Through their database they now know what gun was used.

Who has the gun? Where is the gun at? Are we any safer?

Shawn

Here's the flaw in YOUR argument. The day after your gun is stolen, you report the theft to the national database. At that point it becomes an illegal weapon, and the police are notified. If they find this weapon on a person, that person is then subject to arrest.

 

[hnk45acp]

answers in red

1. In terms of overall gun crime, it will make it significantly more difficult for bad guys to obtain legal guns through private sales. It will help police isolate illegal guns, and make these easier to seize.

Did you see my examples posted above. I can give you 3 years worth of reporting about gun crimes in NYC which show not one of these people had registered guns. We have registration here and it DOESNT work

2. In terms of mass shootings, it will help society keep these weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

How does a gun registry keep guns away from crazy?

 

[LiveLife]

WARNING: We have no idea who timmy4 is and what his/her intentions are. It could range from a misguided child to a hired anti-gun poster paid to incite gun forum discussions. Who knows.

Too bad we don't have an IGNORE button on THR forum ... but glad we do have the moderators.

I read and followed timmy4's posts/threads and looks like his/her posts are simply looking for arguments/fights. I can almost imagine the grin/smile forming as more THR members get frustrated with "hehehehe" in the background.

I won't be responding to any of his/her posts/threads until I am convinced otherwise but I go by the axim "Judge a tree by the fruits it bears"

OK, back to OP of "Can I resume or discussion/debate?"

 

[c4v3man]

Yes, I acknowledge that a black market in illegal guns will likely increase as a result of what I am proposing. But while that's probably inevitable, it doesn't weaken my argument, IMO. Even with the increased black market, it will still be much more difficult for the bad guys to obtain guns than it was before.

And at very little cost! A $5-20 surcharge on each of your guns. A few inconveniences added to you, having to register and go through background checks that will occur instantaneously thanks to the internet. I'm not asking to take any of your rights away. It's a small enough price to pay for greater safety.

I'm out of the conversation, please reply to other posters here. You obviously may have the last word.

However I would say that it's remarkably easy as an "outsider" to propose new rules and regulations on something that has no effect on you. And how difficult do you really, honestly believe it is to get drugs in this country? Secondly, as posted in another thread, what does registration do to actually help prevent crimes? Once a firearm is stolen, how does it's registration history up to that point help you stop that gun from being used in a murder?

 

[9MMare]

Well you raise several issues:

1. No, I don't believe that registration leads to confiscation. Israel is a country which gun owners often cite, especially when making the argument that high private ownership of guns leads to lower violence. Israel has complete and full registration of all firearms, and there are strict gun control regulations in place. Neither of these have led to confiscation; in fact, private gun ownership has increased there to the point where it's nearly universal.

.

This is ridiculous...Israel is still operating under a siege mentality where they believe they need those weapons, in situations they may even consider imminent.

And their widespread gun (assault weapons) ownership has caused no major political or criminal issues .....there's a nice point to focus on .....so why would there be any danger of confiscation?

 

[Claude Clay]

Timmy's so busy barking up the wrong tree he done fell in the well again.

This guy is likely one of the barrage of paid posters by the regime and should be ignored after we have seen what we have seen from him. Constrictor got it.

 

[JohnM]

I had to scan through a little of this and see who this "timmy4" was.
All I can say is his ideas are absurd!

 

[SpazC]

Here's the flaw in YOUR argument. The day after your gun is stolen, you report the theft to the national database. At that point it becomes an illegal weapon, and the police are notified. If they find this weapon on a person, that person is then subject to arrest.

Timmy we can already do that without a database. When you gun is stolen, you report it with serial number. The police know and can then cross reference it across departments.

 

[mcdonl]

Neither of these points are foolproof. This is all about playing the percentages. Just like having to wait in lines at airports, and going through detectors, this is the price we pay for added security. It's well worth it, IMO.

So, timmy... you have already proclaimed you are scared of guns, support Obama and gun control. We got it. Your an anti...

So... lets assume we were proposing...

No person, business or media organization will be allowed to put in print, over the radio, internet or television anything that pertains to any religion other than the following:

Catholicism and other Christian religions...

Also... No person, business or media organization will be allowed to put in print, over the radio, internet or television anything that sheds a negative light on any elected official currently in office.

So... No big deal right, and I can name a few killings (real ones... not gun related, bombs... 100's if not 1000's of people who die because of their freedom of religion or speech....)

Is this worth "playing the percentages"?

Surely you are not afraid of religion and free speech are you? I understand that you cannot have a reasonable debate when you are "scared" of guns but what about the 1st amendment?

 

[ATBackPackin]

Here's the flaw in YOUR argument. The day after your gun is stolen, you report the theft to the national database. At that point it becomes an illegal weapon, and the police are notified. If they find this weapon on a person, that person is then subject to arrest.

Did you even read what you wrote???

They already do that, or at least they are supposed to. When I report a stolen gun and give them the serial number, it is supposed to go into a database of stolen firearms where if anyone is caught with it the police know it is not their gun. These are the kind of things they could do with current laws that do not burden the law abiding.

 

[John3921]

I'm reasonably sure this is a waste of time - but I do not understand what you think a registration will accomplish. There is already a natioanl database for stolen guns -i.e. if I have a weapon stolen and report it -it's recorded.

Registration in and of itself can not stop any crime.

Personally I do not believe that the government has any right or business knowing what I own and what I do in my personal life - so long as I do not infringe on your rights. I am also not interested in paying the gvmt to keep records on me - especially records that can serve no useful purpose.

Admittedly if someone goes around the bend it may be possible that the local LEO would have have warning that they may encounter weapons. In all reallity they would be irresponsible to assume otherwise, because there are and always will be tens of thousands of stolen weopons available to those that want them.

If you consider the nutjob that shot at the fire crew - it wouldn't have helped because he illegally obtained weapons anyway - so they would still have gone in unaware. If he was, for example, a upstanding citizen that blew a gasket and did this then what would the registration have accomplished? Are all emergency responders going to respond with a swat team if there is any kind of emergency at the residence of a registered firearms owner? What if the swat team isn't available and there is a 911 call for a fire? or an unconcious child?