StraightDope article

[heisler]

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before. I know it's an old article.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_123.html

"But local gun registration presents no obvious constitutional problems. Criminals don't register guns of course; that's the point. Arrest a carful of mopes with guns and no permits and you have a good ipso facto case for throwing the book at them. How much better to approach gun control on a reasonable basis rather than make a religious war out of it."

Does registration really work this way?

 

[Sindawe]

Gun registration works as follows:

Registration ==> Confiscation ==> Loss of Rights ==> Slavery

 

[Zrex]

Criminals don't register guns of course

Neither do free men?

 

[Firethorn]

How about we remove the intermediatory steps?

Rather than demonize gun possesion, how about we prosecute (violent) crimes like we should?

Rather than a bank robber being sent to prison for x years for:
A: Bank Robbery
B: Assault w/deadly
C: Possession of a firearm during commision of a felony
D: Felon in possesion of a firearm
E: Illegal concealed carry

Let's send him to prison for x years for:
A: Bank Robbery
B: Assault w/deadly

I don't care if the robbery was done with a gun, knife, bomb, or a really nasty note.

What's the penalty for using/having a firearm during the commision of a crime? Why not just add the x years to all the violent crime categories? Or if you say that we need the laws because it does reduce criminals carrying guns, why not only keep charge C? Though I'd want an increased penalty for knives too. They're sometimes more dangerous than the gun. At least a gun is really noisy.

 

[ken grant]

Sindawe

You left out taxasion on the guns

 

[TrybalRage]

But local gun registration presents no obvious constitutional problems. Criminals don't register guns of course; that's the point. Arrest a carful of mopes with guns and no permits and you have a good ipso facto case for throwing the book at them.

Umm... Lets see here.

Criminals won't register their guns because:

- They are criminals, duh.

Criminals will not be prosecuted for registering a gun that was previously used in a crime because:

- It would violate their fifth amendment rights.

You cannot easily find a carful of 'mopes' (whatever those are) with guns because:

- They are protected by the fourth amendment.

And then, the book would not be thrown at them because it is not their fault that they have guns, it is the socioecenomic situation they live in, and we should let them off the hook so that they may become productive members of society.

 

[cuchulainn]

Registration ==> Confiscation ==> Loss of Rights ==> Slavery

While I agree that in most cases registration has led to confiscation, and that's the main reason I oppose it, we don't convince the fence-sitting electorate simply by spewing the slippery slope logical fallacy.

If you start claiming, "We'll be slaves! Alas! Alack!" people will consider you alarmist if not kooky. They'll stop listening to you. Meanwhile, the antis will be doing their best to appear reasonable, calm and caring. They'll have people's ears and win the battle. It's pretty stupid to hand them the pulpit.

There are more effective arguments to be made against registration.

Confiscation as an argument works somewhat, but only if the person is already opposed to gun control. It works only as a preaching-to-the-choir tool.

Other arguments, like it being a poor crime fighting tool or it being a huge waste of money (look at Canada), can be more effective. There are others, but right now the Canadian debacle is our best bullet.

 

[DRZinn]

we don't convince the fence-sitting electorate simply by spewing the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Get one thing straight, right now: We aren't trying to convince the fence-sitters by posting here. For that we talk to people, write letters, and other such things. This board is for the (at least partially) like-minded, which means I preach for the choir when I post on this board.

And if a "slippery slope" has been proven to be the progression, it's hardly a logical fallacy, regardless of what you may have learned in formalized debates.

 

[thrifty7]

What we seem to be missing is that if the "carful of mopes" has committed no crime (other than illegal possession), there is no reason to "throw the book at them"...and if they have committed other crimes, they should be prosecuted for them. If the statuary punishment for the crimes that were committed is not severe enough, that is what needs to be fixed. The registration scheme gives law enforcement no legitimate help, and is prone to horrible abuse.

 

[RavenVT100]

I wonder if it would ever be possible to enact a registration scheme that was abuse-proof. That would be an interesting thing, wouldn't it? Gunnies would be wary of it and oppose it, but then again the gun control crowd would be forced to accept the fact that it wouldn't be a step towards banning guns.

Then again, I'm not convinced that there is a registration scheme that is abuse-proof.

 

[cuchulainn]

Get one thing straight, right now: We aren't trying to convince the fence-sitters by posting here ... This board is for the (at least partially) like-minded, which means I preach for the choir when I post on this board.

Actually, this board is also here to provide a responsible image of firearm owners, a place where fence sitters can come and learn what what we think. We are supposed to present a good image of gun owners when we're posting here. The more our posts are full of logical fallacies and irresponsible vitriol, the more that fence sitters are likely to leave with any unfortunate prejudices confirmed.

Although we're preaching to the choir for the most part, I pretty sure that Oleg wants us to do it in a manner that is appropriate for public viewing.

THR is supposed to be a place where we can refer those people we talk to on a one-to-one basis for more education.

And if a "slippery slope" has been proven to be the progression, it's hardly a logical fallacy, regardless of what you may have learned in formalized debates.

The progression -- so far -- has stopped at confiscation. To suggest that the people of Australia or England or Canada are "slaves" is the type of hyperbole that turns people off.

I'm sorry, but as much as I hate the idea of registration, there is little if any historical evidence of gun registration eventually leading to slavery.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Straightdope is populated by rabid foaming at the mouth leftists. It's connected to the Chicago Tribune. I got banned from there several years ago.

 

[Chut1st]

The real issue, IMHO, is "Why criminalize possession of a firearm by an otherwise law-abiding citizen rather than take every possible step to keep firearms out of the hands of known, proven criminals by keeping said criminals locked up, supervised and/or monitored?"

 

[buzz_knox]

Guess the author doesn't know that the Supreme Court has already ruled that criminals are not required to register their firearms because it would require them to incriminate themselves. So, all we are left with is the ability to penalize them for possession of the firearms themselves, which is illegal under current law. But recognizing that point would castrate his call for registration, which is the real goa.

Intellectually dishonest slime bag.

 

[DRZinn]

this board is also here to provide a responsible image of firearm owners, a place where fence sitters can come and learn what what we think. We are supposed to present a good image of gun owners when we're posting here.

Although we'd have to ask Oleg, I'm pretty sure the image thing is not the purpose.

Although we're preaching to the choir for the most part, I pretty sure that Oleg wants us to do it in a manner that is appropriate for public viewing.

Exactly. Be presentable, but that's not what the board is for.

The progression -- so far -- has stopped at confiscation. To suggest that the people of Australia or England or Canada are "slaves" is the type of hyperbole that turns people off.

The only distinction is the relative benevolence of their masters.

 

[Jay Kominek]

I'm sorry, but as much as I hate the idea of registration, there is little if any historical evidence of gun registration eventually leading to slavery.

'Modern' registration schemes anyways. See, however, Death by Gun Control for slightly more historic gun registration results.

 

[Nitram68]

Didn't Germany in the 30-40's have full registration of guns? And then take them away from civilians? Didn't Germany in the 40's make slaves out of Jews and other undesirables?

Registration gives the gov't the ability to take them away. I don't think they need that ability. Were they to try to take them now, how would they know I had any? With registration they'd know...

 

[heisler]

Sorry for bumping this thread. I had forgotten about it until now. I just wanted to thank you guys for clarifying the registration issue for me.