|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty?
It's hard to currently trust those safe guards because the technology isn't highly developed. Imagine what uproar would happen if that got someone killed because their scanner malfunctioned in a life or death situation. Huge liability atm.
|
On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty?
I do not think this would change anything. First what if you wanted to use your friends/family members gun?Would this technology not be hackable. What would stop people from building there own firearms?In regards to infringement on liberty how would guns be removed.You could not take guns out of circulation without confiscation. Firearms last pretty much forever if you take care of them or are stored properly. Last week I bought an old USSR Mosin Nagant that was made in 1943 then ordered some ammo that is Bulgarian which was manufactured in 1971.
|
On May 14 2013 06:51 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty? I do not think this would change anything. First what if you wanted to use your friends/family members gun?Would this technology not be hackable. What would stop people from building there own firearms?In regards to infringement on liberty how would guns be removed.You could not take guns out of circulation without confiscation. Firearms last pretty much forever if you take care of them or are stored properly. Last week I bought an old USSR Mosin Nagant that was made in 1943 then ordered some ammo that is Bulgarian which was manufactured in 1971.
This is not something that stops killers from killing, it's just a gun registry where the registry is in the guns themselves.
|
On May 14 2013 06:51 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty? I do not think this would change anything. First what if you wanted to use your friends/family members gun?Would this technology not be hackable. What would stop people from building there own firearms?In regards to infringement on liberty how would guns be removed.You could not take guns out of circulation without confiscation. Firearms last pretty much forever if you take care of them or are stored properly. Last week I bought an old USSR Mosin Nagant that was made in 1943 then ordered some ammo that is Bulgarian which was manufactured in 1971.
Nice. Don't forget to strip it down and remove the cosmoline wax shit out. They sealed them in that stuff back in the day and people fire them without cleaning them completely making the gun all gunked up.
|
Last Christmas my aunt gave me her husband's (my uncle's) first hunting rifle. She had been holding on to it since he passed away several years ago. It is one of my most cherished guns for the sentimental value. If it had a biometric safety locked to my late uncle I wouldn't be able to use it every hunting season like I do now. I understand the potential safety value they have in reducing stolen weapons used in crimes but I know there are plenty of families (if not millions) that pass along firearms through generations.
|
On May 14 2013 06:56 Rhino85 wrote:
Last Christmas my aunt gave me her husband's (my uncle's) first hunting rifle. She had been holding on to it since he passed away several years ago. It is one of my most cherished guns for the sentimental value. If it had a biometric safety locked to my late uncle I wouldn't be able to use it every hunting season like I do now. I understand the potential safety value they have in reducing stolen weapons used in crimes but I know there are plenty of families (if not millions) that pass along firearms through generations.
My father doesn't have his own gun and hence can only shoot guns when he goes to the shooting range with his friends. I know he'd be pissed if they made this change.
|
On May 14 2013 06:56 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:51 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty? I do not think this would change anything. First what if you wanted to use your friends/family members gun?Would this technology not be hackable. What would stop people from building there own firearms?In regards to infringement on liberty how would guns be removed.You could not take guns out of circulation without confiscation. Firearms last pretty much forever if you take care of them or are stored properly. Last week I bought an old USSR Mosin Nagant that was made in 1943 then ordered some ammo that is Bulgarian which was manufactured in 1971. Nice. Don't forget to strip it down and remove the cosmoline wax shit out. They sealed them in that stuff back in the day and people fire them without cleaning them completely making the gun all gunked up.
Yeah already did that, took mineral spirits (paint thinner) to the metal pieces. I am in the process of refinishing the stock, going to re-stain and seal it. I am finishing up my paperwork for a Curios and Relics license. I want to get the Chinese Carbine version type 56 and a Swiss K31 straight pull.
|
On May 14 2013 07:15 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:56 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:51 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty? I do not think this would change anything. First what if you wanted to use your friends/family members gun?Would this technology not be hackable. What would stop people from building there own firearms?In regards to infringement on liberty how would guns be removed.You could not take guns out of circulation without confiscation. Firearms last pretty much forever if you take care of them or are stored properly. Last week I bought an old USSR Mosin Nagant that was made in 1943 then ordered some ammo that is Bulgarian which was manufactured in 1971. Nice. Don't forget to strip it down and remove the cosmoline wax shit out. They sealed them in that stuff back in the day and people fire them without cleaning them completely making the gun all gunked up. Yeah already did that, took mineral spirits (paint thinner) to the metal pieces. I am in the process of refinishing the stock, going to re-stain and seal it. I am finishing up my paperwork for a Curios and Relics license. I want to get the Chinese Carbine version type 56 and a Swiss K31 straight pull.
No matter the toy, nerds will be nerds 
LOVE IT lol
|
On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that.
No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people?
|
On May 14 2013 07:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 07:15 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 06:56 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:51 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty? I do not think this would change anything. First what if you wanted to use your friends/family members gun?Would this technology not be hackable. What would stop people from building there own firearms?In regards to infringement on liberty how would guns be removed.You could not take guns out of circulation without confiscation. Firearms last pretty much forever if you take care of them or are stored properly. Last week I bought an old USSR Mosin Nagant that was made in 1943 then ordered some ammo that is Bulgarian which was manufactured in 1971. Nice. Don't forget to strip it down and remove the cosmoline wax shit out. They sealed them in that stuff back in the day and people fire them without cleaning them completely making the gun all gunked up. Yeah already did that, took mineral spirits (paint thinner) to the metal pieces. I am in the process of refinishing the stock, going to re-stain and seal it. I am finishing up my paperwork for a Curios and Relics license. I want to get the Chinese Carbine version type 56 and a Swiss K31 straight pull. No matter the toy, nerds will be nerds LOVE IT lol
Until there are talks about the government taking the toys away, then you have angry nerds 
(even if its not likely they actually will take them away, nerds still be angry)
|
On May 14 2013 08:24 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 07:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 07:15 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 06:56 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:51 norjoncal wrote:On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty? I do not think this would change anything. First what if you wanted to use your friends/family members gun?Would this technology not be hackable. What would stop people from building there own firearms?In regards to infringement on liberty how would guns be removed.You could not take guns out of circulation without confiscation. Firearms last pretty much forever if you take care of them or are stored properly. Last week I bought an old USSR Mosin Nagant that was made in 1943 then ordered some ammo that is Bulgarian which was manufactured in 1971. Nice. Don't forget to strip it down and remove the cosmoline wax shit out. They sealed them in that stuff back in the day and people fire them without cleaning them completely making the gun all gunked up. Yeah already did that, took mineral spirits (paint thinner) to the metal pieces. I am in the process of refinishing the stock, going to re-stain and seal it. I am finishing up my paperwork for a Curios and Relics license. I want to get the Chinese Carbine version type 56 and a Swiss K31 straight pull. No matter the toy, nerds will be nerds LOVE IT lol Until there are talks about the government taking the toys away, then you have angry nerds (even if its not likely they actually will take them away, nerds still be angry)
I post on the piracy thread--I know how upset nerds get when their toys are in question
|
On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people?
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing.
|
On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people?
It may reduce the total number of firearms that aren't responsibly kept and maintained, without affecting those who responsibly keep and maintain their firearms already. You tend to focus on firearm murder. Keep in mind that firearm suicide is much larger with respect to firearm murder, not to mention accidental death & injury on top of that.
I respect your own opinion that a gun registry would have no effect though. Perhaps it is possible you might change your (correct me if I am wrong) completely anti-control stance upon becoming more familiar with the scientific literature on the topic, even if not specifically in favor of an actual gun registry, but instead more open to thinking about other measures that would count toward better gun control. We can't know for sure by how much a gun registry would reduce the concerning numbers, but we can be sure that something in the form of better control does need to happen. Whether that necessarily involves implementation of a gun registry I do not know.
And yeah just to reiterate, feel free to correct me if I was wrong to assume you're completely against control. It's possible you're only against significant measures such as registries, and more open to other control ideas. At this point there's a lot of different stances in here -- hard to keep track of which ones are 100% anti control and which have specific complaints against specific proposed control measures, while remaining open to other ideas.
|
United States24673 Posts
On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing.
What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues.
Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals.
Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone.
More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well).
|
On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well).
Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well...
I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it.
You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns.
|
United States24673 Posts
On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:
Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally.
[quote]
Think your statement for a moment...
Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns.
Sounds reasonable, although you are sidestepping the issue so now I have to use a more extreme example (which also never ends well even when it is valid).
By your logic, we should force everybody to have cameras installed in our houses that can be used by the police. It will help the police catch criminals.
That one won't go over well, warrant or not.
|
Just wanted too add in that Canada just scrapped it's long gun registry because it was expensive as hell and accomplished nothing.
|
On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:
Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally.
[quote]
Think your statement for a moment...
Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns.
Government at all levels does not exactly have a good track record at getting proper authorization or using tools strictly for the purpose they were intended.
Example would be the "national security letters" sent out in the hundreds since 9/11 demanding information from ISPs and telecommunications companies that ordinarily would have required a warrant. Thankfully last year a judge ruled that the government does need a warrant to get that information.
Or provisions of the anti-terrorist Patriot Act being used domestically against drug traffickers and others.
Or:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/cops-abuse-a-driver-database-and-thats-n
http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/tax/irs-employee-charged-illegally-accessing-celebrity-tax-records
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/doj-secretly-snagged-ap-journalists-tele
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/fbi-documents-suggest-feds-read-emails-without-warrant
You can't trust the government to not abuse databases of information about citizens. Or not to abuse its power to collect information period.
On an issue so controversial and full of conflicting passions as guns, why would anyone expect the government to behave itself?
|
On May 14 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 09:02 micronesia wrote:On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:
Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally.
[quote]
Think your statement for a moment...
Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing. What would be crazy would be to apply this (unqualified) logic to other issues. Allowing cops to enter your home in the middle of the night for no reason and search would increase the likelihood of finding people who conduct illegal activities in their home. We could extend this to random strip searches in the street. By your logic, you'd have to be crazy to think this is a bad thing as it makes it easier for cops to catch criminals. Obviously this isn't what you meant, but in this controversial discussion you should choose your words carefully if you want to sway anyone. More reasonably, there is a balance between the pros and cons of instituting a wide-scale gun registry, and people on both sides of the issue need to try to understand both the pros and the cons before deciding whether or not we should institute one. It seems like most people decide whether or not we should institute one and then study what the pros and cons would be (which doesn't end well). Both entering a person's home and strip searching random people requires a warrant--I don't see why a registry wouldn't require a warrant to search through as well... I hold my home very dearly, but a warrant allows cops to search it. You hold your guns dearly, can't a cop be required to have a warrant before using the registry? If it's good enough for houses its good enough for guns.
His point was not that if they implement gun controls then everything will be thrown out. He was pointing out the implications of your statement that you were okay with anything that made it easier for cops to catch criminals.
It would be MUCH easier for cops to catch criminals if they didn't need warrants. He's just pointing out that what you said can't be what you mean, since what you said means that you're okay with getting rid of things such as warrants, reasonable doubt, and due process.
Since you obviously don't think those things should be done (doing so would be incredibly dangerous), you must not believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is okay.
|
On May 14 2013 08:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 08:23 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then... May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US. Would this be another way to frame that "argument": "Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death." And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that. No, that isn't how I would frame the argument. You can't have mass confiscation without a gun registry, unlike these other "infinite number of other possibilities" that you suggest exist. I would say the likelihood of a gun registry having any amount of impact on reducing overall violence is so unrealistic that it would not be worth the risk of leaving the door wide open for gun confiscation. Will a gun registry mean we will have mass confiscation? I don't know, but why risk it? How will a gun registry cause people to stop murdering other people? Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that anything that makes it easier for cops to catch criminals is a good thing.
While we are at it lets just abolish the 4th and 5th amendments then it will make easier for cops to catch criminals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
