9 ms·

> No, says the gun lobby. It would give the government a tool to confiscate our guns. The idea of a gun registry is the great fever dream that lies at the heart

> No, says the gun lobby. It would give the government a tool to confiscate our guns. The idea of a gun registry is the great fever dream that lies at the heart of gun-control conspiracy theories: Government evildoers are going to attack us any day now. We have to be ready. (And you don't give the enemy an inventory of all your weapons!) I mean, I constantly see the concerns of gun owners derided like this, but I've never seen a good reason why they shouldn't be scared of a national registry. The debate has been purely adversarial for quite some time, so I'm not sure why/how both sides should come together for a good-faith compromise.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bjt2n3904 10y ago
Thanks for recognizing the adversarial nature of the debate. Historically, registration precedes confiscation. Australia comes to mind. As a gun owner, I'm not sure how there can be "compromise" with "universal registration", especially when politicians are actively touting confiscation as an option on the table. Something I'd liken this to is Obama's "Key Escrow". Apple holds half the key to the encryption, The Feds hold the other. Look, a reasonable compromise! We promise that we won't do anything evil.
- hga 10y ago
  Australia comes to mind. You can add California, SKSes due to an AG reinterpretation of the law, New York state, and right now Massachusetts is going through such an event due to their AG. And as you note, it's not like there's any lack of public figures including politicians who are touting outright confiscation, including those praising the Australian model, which include one of the two major party nominees for this presidential election. "You aren't paranoid if they are out to get you."
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > "You aren't paranoid if they are out to get you." You still might be. Just that thinking they're out to get you isn't, in that case, evidence of it...
    - hga 10y ago
      Of course, that's why I put it in scare quotes, to in this case indicate it's not a real representation of reality, in this case merely a useful maxim.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        Ah, I'd interpreted them as quote quotes.
chiph 10y ago
Gun owners (I am one) regard compromise on the subject as they're the ones giving something up. The people on the other side of the table aren't sacrificing anything. It's like your boss asking you to come in and work on Saturday for the good of the team. But won't pay you for your time.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  It's more like having a team of mostly ok workers (all citizens) and one screw up who never shows up to work (violent criminals who commit crime with guns) and then making everyone come in on Saturday because they need to account for the work the no-show didn't do. Then you exempt HR and overhead staff (non gun owners) because you don't need them to be involved in that particular work. Then you exempt the HR and overhead staff because they have no skin in the game and as predicted the no-show no-shows. Of course the people who actually have skin in the game and do what they're supposed to are salty about it.
- pjc50 10y ago
  The people on the other side of the table aren't sacrificing anything. Their lives and safety, on a daily basis? It's the other way round, really: universal gun ownership involves the sacrifice of thousands of lives annually. Admittedly so does car ownership and OTC tylenol, but in those contexts we can admit the tradeoff and seek to minimise the cost.
  - hga 10y ago
    You don't see a trade-off in our allowing effective self-defense, which by data collected by gun controllers decades ago happens a minimum of a million times a year? Or the difference between citizens, who are traditionally defined as those who bear arms in defense of their polity, with subjects?
  - chiph 10y ago
    > gun ownership involves the sacrifice of thousands of lives annually I would put it to you that human nature is such that if guns weren't available, people would turn to alternative weapons. Knives. Bats. Fists. The UK is seeing this progression happen now. But with a tool like a firearm, any 45 kilogram woman can defend herself against a stronger attacker. Or a 77 kg man against someone stronger than him, or perhaps a group of attackers. In the rural USA the attacker doesn't even have to be a person - it could be a brown bear (which are absolutely huge, BTW), a wild boar (increasingly common in the South), or a venomous reptile. Not having a firearm to defend yourself in those situations means you die alone in the wilderness. But the key thing to all those examples is that they are defensive uses of a firearm. You will seldom see examples of this in the news because it's not lurid enough. And that most of the time, the gun is never even fired - the credible threat is enough to stop the attack. I'm guessing that you are European, and as such have never seen a defensive use of a gun. You have only been exposed to negative views of them via the news services and Hollywood films. If you visit central Texas anytime, I'd be willing to take you to the range and give you an introduction to safe operation of a firearm and show you that gun owners are regular people too.
onetwotree 10y ago
From the other side, I also feel like the adversarial nature of the debate has gotten completely out of hand. Democracy is all about compromise, but when it comes to guns people just go off the rails. Here's how it feels from my point of view: I'd like it if the police could really just run a serial number (perhaps with judicial oversight, warrants, etc.), like they do on T.V. But the right takes my genuine desire to take some sensible measures to reduce violent crime and turns it into a desire to take away all of the guns and commit some atrocity. It's like I'm asking you if I could use your cellphone for a second to call for a ride, and you treat me like I'm definitely planning to steal it. Perhaps a sensible measure in some contexts, but it is always a fundamental statement about how little you trust me, and frankly insulting. Many on the left, of course, do the same thing, although obviously I'm not in as good of a position to describe it. Somehow we need to restore our trust in one another's shared values. It seems to me that a heavily partisan media has done the most to erode this trust (for example, the vicious attacks on the fundamental values of Bush and Obama), but there might be more too it.
- hga 10y ago
  Democracy is all about compromise Can you tell us what you are willing to give up to gain any of your goals? Compromise does not mean only we give up something, but not quite as much as was asked from us at the beginning of the process of drafting a law.
  - onetwotree 10y ago
    What do you want? It's an honest question, but I think that part of the problem is that gun rights are at a sort of apogee in this country - I don't really have much more to give.
    - hga 10y ago
      gun rights are at a sort of apogee in this country I don't think it's quite that simple, for it's rather binary. In what I call the free states, it's still climbing, with e.g. 2 states going Constitutional Carry (no license required for concealed carry), with my Missouri likely joining them this month. In the slave states, its getting steadily worse, California is front and center, but also see the Massachusetts AG continuous redefining of the state's "assault weapons" law, and the various laws that have been passed in the last few years, plus Bloomberg's initiative campaign to ban the lending of firearms, a very direct threat to US gun culture. And of course there's the minor detail that a very large fraction of the country doesn't see this as a problem at all. The overwhelming majority of the states (42 with shall issue or better), and most of the people (72%, ditto), are directly living and driving this "apogee", through the politicians we freely elect. As for what we want, let's start with: Nationwide shall issue concealed carry. Nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry licenses. Going further, nationwide Constitutional Carry (no license required, which is the law of the land in 10 states now). An end to statewide "assault weapons" and magazine capacity bans. An end to statewide inexpensive gun bans (that's California and Massachusetts. Cut the thicket of "20,000" gun control laws nationwide to a relative handful, few enough that everyone can know what the law actually is. There's a whole bunch of "flypaper" laws that, whatever the claimed or real intent, just entrap those trying to abide by the law. Deport Michael Bloomberg ^_^. Seriously, rule unconstitutional the laws he's getting passed, generally by deceptive initiative, that ban the lending of guns, and that are directly aimed at strangulating the creation of new gun owners. End the VA's polices of removing gun rights from veterans without a real adjudication as is required by law, and stop the extension of this to the elderly on Social Security. End the ITAR attempt to put most of the nation's gunsmiths out of business. Put a stake in things like the BATFE's proposal to redefine what nitrogen percentage makes wetted nitrocellulose a high explosive (only stopped for now because of the disaster it posed for the DoD and the rest of the government). Terminate the BATFE with extreme prejudice, and forbid all in it from ever working in law enforcement again. This article paints a nice picture of them, but in the field they're murderous and incompetent thugs. The ban is to keep them from polluting other law enforcement agencies. I can go on if you want ^_^.
splintercell 10y ago
My rationale behind not supporting any compromise is simple: the other side does not want me to have any guns. Imagine if the most anti-gun position in America was still very pro-gun people like say Charleton Heston, then I'd be willing for a compromise. I would be ok with building a registry where the police can search for guns. But the fact is, we know that Hillary Clinton talks about how Australia successfully got rid of all its guns. We know that the ultimate goal isn't a happy compromise in the middle. This is why the 'cold dead hands' mentality exists in America. It's like imagine if Republicans want a national registry of people by their religion. Or national ethnicity database. The Democrats wouldn't (and shouldn't) give an inch on that.
- karmacondon 10y ago
  Insane. No politician is calling for a complete elimination of guns. That idea has never been proposed or discussed seriously in any way. I don't think even the fringe of the anti-gun lobby wants to get rid of all guns. This is probably one of the most successful strawmen in all of US politics. I don't think anyone on either side actually believes that the government would ever try to confiscate all guns
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - splintercell 10y ago
    > Insane. No politician is calling for a complete elimination of guns. That idea has never been proposed or discussed seriously in any way. I don't think even the fringe of the anti-gun lobby wants to get rid of all guns. Are you serious? I can't determine if you're being sarcastic or not. Sure the idea has never been formally proposed, because no politician will ever get elected in America if they proposed such idea. But here's Hillary Clinton for you: > I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.< Now you may say that Hillary Clinton didn't mean gun confiscation by 'Australian example', but it's clear she clearly isn't appalled by Australian gun confiscation. Why Australian example? Why not Canadian example? Why not French example? Sure maybe this is not a strong correlation. But then Democrats get caught all the time talking about complete elimination of guns when they think they are not on Camera: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/01/maryland-deputy-ag-reveals-secrets-in-hotel-meetings-with-undercover-okeefe-reporter-video/ http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/01/maryland-deputy-ag-reveals... Matt Damon openly supports Australia styles gun confiscation: http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/06/matt-damon-mass-gun-confiscation-needed-us-australia http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/06/matt-damon-mass-gun-co... I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the ideal vision of America gun control proponents have is to have no civilian ownership of guns.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bjt2n3904 10y ago

Thanks for recognizing the adversarial nature of the debate. Historically, registration precedes confiscation. Australia comes to mind. As a gun owner, I'm not sure how there can be "compromise" with "universal registration", especially when politicians are actively touting confiscation as an option on the table. Something I'd liken this to is Obama's "Key Escrow". Apple holds half the key to the encryption, The Feds hold the other. Look, a reasonable compromise! We promise that we won't do anything evil.

hga 10y ago
Australia comes to mind. You can add California, SKSes due to an AG reinterpretation of the law, New York state, and right now Massachusetts is going through such an event due to their AG. And as you note, it's not like there's any lack of public figures including politicians who are touting outright confiscation, including those praising the Australian model, which include one of the two major party nominees for this presidential election. "You aren't paranoid if they are out to get you."
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > "You aren't paranoid if they are out to get you." You still might be. Just that thinking they're out to get you isn't, in that case, evidence of it...
  - hga 10y ago
    Of course, that's why I put it in scare quotes, to in this case indicate it's not a real representation of reality, in this case merely a useful maxim.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      Ah, I'd interpreted them as quote quotes.

chiph 10y ago

Gun owners (I am one) regard compromise on the subject as they're the ones giving something up. The people on the other side of the table aren't sacrificing anything. It's like your boss asking you to come in and work on Saturday for the good of the team. But won't pay you for your time.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
It's more like having a team of mostly ok workers (all citizens) and one screw up who never shows up to work (violent criminals who commit crime with guns) and then making everyone come in on Saturday because they need to account for the work the no-show didn't do. Then you exempt HR and overhead staff (non gun owners) because you don't need them to be involved in that particular work. Then you exempt the HR and overhead staff because they have no skin in the game and as predicted the no-show no-shows. Of course the people who actually have skin in the game and do what they're supposed to are salty about it.
pjc50 10y ago
The people on the other side of the table aren't sacrificing anything. Their lives and safety, on a daily basis? It's the other way round, really: universal gun ownership involves the sacrifice of thousands of lives annually. Admittedly so does car ownership and OTC tylenol, but in those contexts we can admit the tradeoff and seek to minimise the cost.
- hga 10y ago
  You don't see a trade-off in our allowing effective self-defense, which by data collected by gun controllers decades ago happens a minimum of a million times a year? Or the difference between citizens, who are traditionally defined as those who bear arms in defense of their polity, with subjects?
- chiph 10y ago
  > gun ownership involves the sacrifice of thousands of lives annually I would put it to you that human nature is such that if guns weren't available, people would turn to alternative weapons. Knives. Bats. Fists. The UK is seeing this progression happen now. But with a tool like a firearm, any 45 kilogram woman can defend herself against a stronger attacker. Or a 77 kg man against someone stronger than him, or perhaps a group of attackers. In the rural USA the attacker doesn't even have to be a person - it could be a brown bear (which are absolutely huge, BTW), a wild boar (increasingly common in the South), or a venomous reptile. Not having a firearm to defend yourself in those situations means you die alone in the wilderness. But the key thing to all those examples is that they are defensive uses of a firearm. You will seldom see examples of this in the news because it's not lurid enough. And that most of the time, the gun is never even fired - the credible threat is enough to stop the attack. I'm guessing that you are European, and as such have never seen a defensive use of a gun. You have only been exposed to negative views of them via the news services and Hollywood films. If you visit central Texas anytime, I'd be willing to take you to the range and give you an introduction to safe operation of a firearm and show you that gun owners are regular people too.

onetwotree 10y ago

From the other side, I also feel like the adversarial nature of the debate has gotten completely out of hand. Democracy is all about compromise, but when it comes to guns people just go off the rails. Here's how it feels from my point of view: I'd like it if the police could really just run a serial number (perhaps with judicial oversight, warrants, etc.), like they do on T.V. But the right takes my genuine desire to take some sensible measures to reduce violent crime and turns it into a desire to take away all of the guns and commit some atrocity. It's like I'm asking you if I could use your cellphone for a second to call for a ride, and you treat me like I'm definitely planning to steal it. Perhaps a sensible measure in some contexts, but it is always a fundamental statement about how little you trust me, and frankly insulting. Many on the left, of course, do the same thing, although obviously I'm not in as good of a position to describe it. Somehow we need to restore our trust in one another's shared values. It seems to me that a heavily partisan media has done the most to erode this trust (for example, the vicious attacks on the fundamental values of Bush and Obama), but there might be more too it.

hga 10y ago
Democracy is all about compromise Can you tell us what you are willing to give up to gain any of your goals? Compromise does not mean only we give up something, but not quite as much as was asked from us at the beginning of the process of drafting a law.
- onetwotree 10y ago
  What do you want? It's an honest question, but I think that part of the problem is that gun rights are at a sort of apogee in this country - I don't really have much more to give.
  - hga 10y ago
    gun rights are at a sort of apogee in this country I don't think it's quite that simple, for it's rather binary. In what I call the free states, it's still climbing, with e.g. 2 states going Constitutional Carry (no license required for concealed carry), with my Missouri likely joining them this month. In the slave states, its getting steadily worse, California is front and center, but also see the Massachusetts AG continuous redefining of the state's "assault weapons" law, and the various laws that have been passed in the last few years, plus Bloomberg's initiative campaign to ban the lending of firearms, a very direct threat to US gun culture. And of course there's the minor detail that a very large fraction of the country doesn't see this as a problem at all. The overwhelming majority of the states (42 with shall issue or better), and most of the people (72%, ditto), are directly living and driving this "apogee", through the politicians we freely elect. As for what we want, let's start with: Nationwide shall issue concealed carry. Nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry licenses. Going further, nationwide Constitutional Carry (no license required, which is the law of the land in 10 states now). An end to statewide "assault weapons" and magazine capacity bans. An end to statewide inexpensive gun bans (that's California and Massachusetts. Cut the thicket of "20,000" gun control laws nationwide to a relative handful, few enough that everyone can know what the law actually is. There's a whole bunch of "flypaper" laws that, whatever the claimed or real intent, just entrap those trying to abide by the law. Deport Michael Bloomberg ^_^. Seriously, rule unconstitutional the laws he's getting passed, generally by deceptive initiative, that ban the lending of guns, and that are directly aimed at strangulating the creation of new gun owners. End the VA's polices of removing gun rights from veterans without a real adjudication as is required by law, and stop the extension of this to the elderly on Social Security. End the ITAR attempt to put most of the nation's gunsmiths out of business. Put a stake in things like the BATFE's proposal to redefine what nitrogen percentage makes wetted nitrocellulose a high explosive (only stopped for now because of the disaster it posed for the DoD and the rest of the government). Terminate the BATFE with extreme prejudice, and forbid all in it from ever working in law enforcement again. This article paints a nice picture of them, but in the field they're murderous and incompetent thugs. The ban is to keep them from polluting other law enforcement agencies. I can go on if you want ^_^.

splintercell 10y ago

My rationale behind not supporting any compromise is simple: the other side does not want me to have any guns. Imagine if the most anti-gun position in America was still very pro-gun people like say Charleton Heston, then I'd be willing for a compromise. I would be ok with building a registry where the police can search for guns. But the fact is, we know that Hillary Clinton talks about how Australia successfully got rid of all its guns. We know that the ultimate goal isn't a happy compromise in the middle. This is why the 'cold dead hands' mentality exists in America. It's like imagine if Republicans want a national registry of people by their religion. Or national ethnicity database. The Democrats wouldn't (and shouldn't) give an inch on that.

karmacondon 10y ago
Insane. No politician is calling for a complete elimination of guns. That idea has never been proposed or discussed seriously in any way. I don't think even the fringe of the anti-gun lobby wants to get rid of all guns. This is probably one of the most successful strawmen in all of US politics. I don't think anyone on either side actually believes that the government would ever try to confiscate all guns
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- splintercell 10y ago
  > Insane. No politician is calling for a complete elimination of guns. That idea has never been proposed or discussed seriously in any way. I don't think even the fringe of the anti-gun lobby wants to get rid of all guns. Are you serious? I can't determine if you're being sarcastic or not. Sure the idea has never been formally proposed, because no politician will ever get elected in America if they proposed such idea. But here's Hillary Clinton for you: > I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.< Now you may say that Hillary Clinton didn't mean gun confiscation by 'Australian example', but it's clear she clearly isn't appalled by Australian gun confiscation. Why Australian example? Why not Canadian example? Why not French example? Sure maybe this is not a strong correlation. But then Democrats get caught all the time talking about complete elimination of guns when they think they are not on Camera: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/01/maryland-deputy-ag-reveals-secrets-in-hotel-meetings-with-undercover-okeefe-reporter-video/ http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/01/maryland-deputy-ag-reveals... Matt Damon openly supports Australia styles gun confiscation: http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/06/matt-damon-mass-gun-confiscation-needed-us-australia http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/06/matt-damon-mass-gun-co... I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the ideal vision of America gun control proponents have is to have no civilian ownership of guns.