Question on a personal debate about federal regisrations

[Shadow 7D]

So I kinda scoffed in debate class about gun control as a topic, after class one of the other students (who l later learned is a member of the debate team, and this is a team that routinely takes top national and international honors, so hes good) why I scoffed, I responded that most of the debate on "Gun Control" is political hyperbole, on both sides. It is a constitutional right period and should be respected as one.

This led a conversation where he claimed that gun control has failed to prevent crimes because there is no accountablity on the fire arm owner to report it stolen nor is easily traceable. He went on to make the point that local, wheather state or city gun control fails because people bring weapons from outside the area.

His idea was to
register all firearms at the federal level
make failure to report firearms lost or stolen a crime
require safe storage in a manner to prevent those unauthorized from gaining easy access to the gun (suicide prevention)

On his defense he stated that it would not prevent the owning of a firearm but would help to prevent the conversion of legal firearms entering the black market by straw buyers and active pursuit of stolen firearms.

there are holes in his argument, but I seem not to be able to find them

Please Help

 

[AZ_Rebel]

His idea was to:
register all firearms at the federal level
Just because a gun is registered does not mean it can't be stolen. But, a list of guns and gun owners can certainly be useful in future "Control Programs"!

make failure to report firearms lost or stolen a crime
Ah yes let's make the victim of a crime also a criminal? And, once reported then what? Police will automatically "find" the stolen property and return it to the owner? Typical Liberal BS.

require safe storage in a manner to prevent those unauthorized from gaining easy access to the gun (suicide prevention)
And who would determine what "safe storage" is? And if your gun is not accessable it is not available to protect anything. A person determined to take his/her life can do so without a firearm.

Just a few quick answers - I am sure there are many more and better ones.

 

[kdstrick]

The reason gun control has never worked is that criminals (by definition) do not follow the law. All his proposed 'new' laws would be as ineffective as all the others in reducing crime because only law abiding citizens obey the law.

Would a person whom intends to murder another with a firearm be concerned about violating any of his proposed laws?

Use the obvious to ridicule the fool.

In England and Australia, where their laws are MUCH stricter than any imposed in the USA, gun control has led to an INCREASE in violent crime. You see, criminals prefer unarmed victims... go figure.

If you would like some facts take a look at John Lott's work "more guns less crime".

 

[JohnKSa]

He went on to make the point that local, wheather state or city gun control fails because people bring weapons from outside the area.

Guns can be made fairly easily, and oddly enough, one of the easiest types to make is a full-auto submachinegun.

Unless he's going to try to register files, hacksaws, drills, and other metal-working tools he's describing an exercise in futility.

register all firearms at the federal level

Many countries have used this approach. None has eliminated firearm crime. If he says otherwise it's up to him to provide the proof.

make failure to report firearms lost or stolen a crime

This punishes the victim for being a victim. How many people inventory all their posessions every day?

require safe storage in a manner to prevent those unauthorized from gaining easy access to the gun (suicide prevention)

If he's talking about preventing crime, again this focuses on making potential crime victims into criminals--punishing them for not taking sufficient steps to prevent their becoming victims. You don't prevent crime by punishing the law-abiding. Even if it can be made to work it's contrary to the principles this country was founded upon.

Imagine a judge wrapping up the sentencing in a rape trial by saying: "The rapist gets 20 years to life and the victim gets 5 years for not being safe enough. She should have known that walking around in that part of town at night was dangerous."

As far as preventing suicides, he would need to show that suicide rates decrease when a viable suicide method is removed from their options. In other words, he has to show that if you take guns away from people a significant percentage of suicidal people decide not to commit suicide vs. merely choosing another method. (e.g. jumping off a building or taking too much Tylenol)

On his defense he stated that it would not prevent the owning of a firearm but would help to prevent the conversion of legal firearms entering the black market by straw buyers and active pursuit of stolen firearms.

Again, this is based on the incorrect assumption that if criminals can't steal or otherwise illegally acquire legal guns that they will be unable to procure firearms. Look at the billions spent on keeping illegal drugs out of the country--ask him how effective that has been? Ask him how his strategies will prevent a person from building submachine guns in his garage?

 

[Prosser]

We have all those great ideas in Kali, pretty much. Results? Half the state is pretty much illegal immigrants from Mexico. 50% of the children in our schools are now of Mexican decent.
If they can smuggle people, you think the Mexican gangs can't have them carry guns across the border?

All the safe law does is cut down your ability to move, and add expense to gun ownership. Of course that's the whole idea. Make it super expensive, and, a super hassle to buy a gun, and only the very rich, and, the bad guys will have guns.

 

[HK G3]

If we ignore the flagrant violation of civil rights, that stuff would probably prevent some firearm murders...

But it wouldn't do anything to stop crime, including murders.

The problem with gun control debates is that the antis tend to view a decrease in murders where firearms are used as the weapon of choice as a victory, regardless of whether or not violent crime goes up, or the overall murder rate goes up.

They think that 4 knife-murders is a better outcome than a single gun-murder, through some very perverse logic.

 

[Shadow 7D]

He argues that in england an aussi that while the violent crime has in creased that murders and death from firearms has decreased, so sacrificing the masses for the few, then that turned into a relative value of human life versus suffering and misery.

His main point was that while it would increase burden on firearm owners it would not prohibit anyone from owning a gun...... but would make blackmarket guns easier to trace to a source.

from him, Kali, DC, Chicago all suffer from the ready gun just out side of their boarder, interestingly he conceded that his plan would not make firearms less common on the black market but more (supposedly) difficult to buy leagally and sell illegally.

The stolen firearms would be criminal in part to keep it from being a means of conversion, but criminal only if not reported. Which most are as that is what is required for the homeowners insurance claim.

Oh and on suicides, they do decrease when a ready means, which a firearm is, is not readily available, especially in teenage girls second by teenage boys, so there is a valid point and he personally thought the Kali law was stupid, hence not locked up, rather not readily available, that keeps the teeniboppers that normally swallow a bottle of aspirin from doing something more effective, but fails to account for the deliberate suicides which are not deterred by an inconvenience and will end their life not matter what.

 

[Shadow 7D]

And when I asked if this isn't a slippery slope, he cited the 2nd ammendment (then for the greater public good, ie not yelling fire in a movie theater) I responded with the fact that Brittan is looking a knife ban due to the rise in vilent criminals using knife and bladed weapons.

His response was that that show a ban works and it takes much longer for a person to die of a knife wound and it a lot harder to kill them in the first place..... I took a number of pot shots at this.

 

[Zoogster]

His idea was to
register all firearms at the federal level
make failure to report firearms lost or stolen a crime
require safe storage in a manner to prevent those unauthorized from gaining easy access to the gun

The implementation of that has allowed governments to disarm populations at any time when so desired.
It means when they say it is time to surrender your weapon, they
A. know you are the legal registered owner of that firearm,
and B. that if you cannot present the firearm you can be arrested anyways for the crime of failure to report it stolen, lost, etc


Those are the key principles of allowing confiscation. Know where all guns are, and making it a crime for guns not to be there.
Then no citizen can say "it was stolen" or "I lost it in a boating accident" like you see people say on here. Because those are crimes themselves. It will be a crime to say they went missing over the summer, and they nor a jury are going to believe they were legitimately lost within the few days required to report them before they tried to seize them.
The "safe storage" requirement further removes the excuse of "it was stolen".

So with implementation of those principles confiscation of weapons, or any type or targeted weapons ("assault" this or "sniper" that etc) becomes an easy organized task. You look on the database, request the firearm or that some new process is done with it, and then criminally charge anyone that has an excuse for not having it.

Additionally anyone that tries to report a weapon lost or stolen to avoid such a seizure can then be criminally charged for ever being found in possession of any weapon reported lost or stolen. Even weapons they decided not to seize. So if the person said they lost _ rifles _handguns etc and they end up only outlawing some of them, even the others can never be found in possession of the person again, or it would be proof of lying/filing a false report etc

The 1986 FOPA, the same bill that had the Hughes Amendment banning new manufacture of domestic select fire firearms for regular peasants, prohibits the government from creating, possessing, or otherwise being involved in registration of firearms at the federal level. If any federal employee is found using such a database , or contributing to the creation of one, they could be charged with violating the federal law, and various conspiracies to violate the law.

 

[bigfatdave]

SO let's think about a hypothetical case here
Imagine someone with a firearm they bought legally for cash from a private seller - we'll imagine a generic .357mag revolver for our hypothetical paperwork-free gun. Remember that it was bought legally in a locality not requiring registration of firearms, or requiring something like a FOID to purchase ammunition.

The owner of the gun paid cash, and did no more than show his CC permit and DL to demonstrate that he was not precluded from owning firearms. No record was kept by the private seller, because none was required.
He paid cash for this revolver, and pays cash for any accessories/ammo for it as well, as part of the intellectual exercise of keeping a gun private. The owner has a nice stockpile of .357 and .38 ammo for it, and a lever-rifle he bought with a 4473 form at a shop to explain the ammunition, if anyone were to ask about it.
The legal owner does not discuss the gun, does not post online about the gun, and does not talk about the clandestine nature of the gun if he meets someone at the range while firing the gun.

So how will new legislation effectively keep that gun from being used in an illegal fashion?
And more importantly, is it ethical to criminalize the ownership of such a gun tomorrow, if it is legal today?