Replies to post #3850 on The Free Zone Board

[mikkj]

RE: WEAC/Gun COntrol.

Just a further note on these issues. Why do you assume that if the government was taken suddenly stupid, and decided to "round up all the guns", that the American people would go along with it? There would be firefights in the cities AND the country, and that's not even mentioning the survivalists, and militia groups. The military would be required to pull this off, and since you say that the military would never pull a coup because the individual soldiers wouldn't go along with it, why would they do this? Not to mention the njmber of guns which would be "lost", or "reported stolen", just before the order went into effect.

The same point goes for the U.N. issue. Why do you assume that the American people would go along with this? It shows a complete lack of faith in the American people to think that we would not rise up in protest, and FORCE the government to do what we wished.

Eventually, paranoid fantasy MUST meet up with reality. You have to look at what would ACTUALLY happen, not just what you are afraid MIGHT happen.

[Indy708]

Mikkj/Weac- Re: Gun Control.

Personally, I'd take it a step further. I'd have every weapon fired before it left the factory, so the rifling marks left on the bullet could be identified and registered to each specific weapon that had rifling grooves in the barrel. Also I'd make it a crime to own or sell a weapon that had the serial # filed off. Then I'd go invest in a co. that specialized in the production of shot guns.<g>

[was Graywolf]

Mikkj - gun control

First, I get SO tired of this "WELL, you can't trust THEM to give the truth!", kind of debating. I suppose the only study YOU would accept would be done by the NRA? The STUDY wasn't done by Time magazine, they just reported it. Or, do you think they mis-reported the facts of the study?

They didn't report any facts, they reported that facts existed, and failed to back it up with anything more than conjecture based on thier own opinion.

Secondly registration CAN serve a purpose. If a crime is commited with a gun, and the gun discarded, they can trace the gun back to the owner.

Why do people who support registration always make statements that assume that people commiting crimes with guns do so with guns they aquired legally, when nothing could be farther than the truth? The gun can be traced back to the person who last registered it legally. Period. Since the majority of the time that is not going to be the person who committed a crime with the gun, it proves useless as a crime control tool.

But, then, that's part of your problem with it, isn't it? We have to take training, and a test, to get a license to drive a car. We also have to register our cars. I assure you that confiscation of our cars would be far more damaging to our democracy than confiscation of our guns would be - and both are as likely.

You're kidding, right? Car bans as likely as gun bans? That's ludicrous.

[Spallenzani]

RE: mikkj/WEAC/Gun Control.

Secondly registration CAN serve a purpose. If a crime is commited with a gun, and the gun discarded, they can trace the gun back to the owner.

Do you realize how rare this would be? Imagine the situation. Keep in mind that this is the only situation where registration would help catch a criminal.

A criminal commits a crime. Before leaving the scene of the crime, the criminal decides to drop the gun on the floor. Also keep in mind that in order for the gun to be traceable to the criminal, the criminal would have to buy and register the gun legally.

To determine if such a registration system would be cost effective, add up all the costs of registration. These costs are enormous. Canada had a large scandal recently after the department in charge of registration tried to cover up a major portion of the costs for fear of losing public support if people found out just how much money was being spent.

Then add up the amount of crime being prevented and the number of criminals being caught. Also keep in mind that an extremely small percentage of those who buy guns legally commit crimes.

In addition, remember that every new law and regulation discourages law abiding citizens from purchasing guns. These are law-abiding citizens who could be defending themselves and their families frim criminals and preventing crimes from happening in the first place.

Now onto the subject of registration leading to confiscation.

Before 1920 in the U.K. there was almost no impediment to the purchase of firearms. The 1920 act required a certificate issued by the local Chief Officer of Police before a firearm could be acquired. In 1946 the Home Office, in its guidance to police forces on the "good reasons" for which a firearm could be held, averred that self-defence was no longer to be accepted.

60,000 law-abiding people had their pistols confiscated by the government in the U.K. in 1997.

Registration allows government to do three things:

1. It can use incremental rulemaking to change the classes both of weapon available and the person who may have them.

2. It can, over time, control the peaceable use of weapons to the extent (as here) that most people have never seen a firearm.

3. It can use the registration lists to make sure it confiscates every single legally held weapon.

There is very little evidence from anywhere that the registration of weapons has any benefit to society. There is substantial evidence that registration is expensive, usually ineffectual and open to abuse.

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control, and from 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents were exterminated. In 1911 Turkey established gun control, and from 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated. Germany established it in 1938, and by 1945 13 million Jews and other peoples were exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935, and by 1952 20 million dissidents were exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. By 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970, and by 1979 300,000 Christians were exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were rounded up and exterminated

In New York, people were required to register all their rifles and shotguns. No problems, until the state government passed an "assault weapons" ban. Suddenly, registered owners were receiving letters telling them that they had a short time limit to choose between a) turning their expensive weapons over to the police for a pittance, b) selling or storing the weapon out of the state (Selling the weapon, however, might run afoul of certain federal regulations.) or c) prove that they have rendered it permanently non-functional, by, for example, having it welded shut.

The second example was in California, where they placed a time limit on registering "assault weapons" that was too short to complete the process, turning tens of thousands of owners into felons (which would cost them the right to own any guns, vote, and a host of other penalties). The Attorney General said that the deadline would not be enforced and that he would allow registrations to continue, and then turned around and retroactively said that the original deadline would be held to, and that anyone who registered after that date had to dispose of their weapon or be prosecuted.

The California situation was compounded by the fact that they were unclear as to which models of firearms were actually considered "assault weapons" and the AG's office started playing games with that list, telling owners of a certain kind of SKS rifle that they did not have to register, then, once the deadline was passed, reversing the decision to say that the weapon was indeed covered by the definition. The lawsuits are still in progress.