4 ms·

I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. I think the Government in their wisdom is trying to do the right thing. Having

I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. I think the Government in their wisdom is trying to do the right thing. Having weapons registered means that if a crime occurs with a gun, it can be traced to a legal owner and they can be held accountable for the crime. This in turn means that legal gun owners will be more responsible with the storage and use of their weapons which will reduce the amount of crimes perpetrated by "legal" weapons. It will mean that if a weapon is stolen, it will be reported as such because the registered owner doesn't want to be held accountable for a crime with a stolen weapon. There is much good that can come from registration. It will lead to more responsible gun owners. However, the argument on the other side of the fence is also true - criminals will always be able to get unfettered access to illegal weapons. However, those weapons will have to be smuggled into the country, not stolen from those who purchased them through legal channels. But just like the Jews, if you've got a gun and owning a gun becomes a crime that the government decide to enforce retroactively, then you have effectively signed your arrest warrant by registering them. I don't think this is their intention however. Their intention is merely to hold legal gun owners to a standard of care that I believe they should be held and currently aren't. They're saying "if you own a gun, you're going to be expected to care for it responsibly. If you do not care for it responsibly, you are going to be held accountable for the damage it causes." But you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The government has a history of making laws that seem to be well intended that end up being exploited because they're overreaching while saying "oh, we don't mean that, we'll never enforce it in that way."

balabaster 8y ago
They also have a history of pushing through unpopular legislation by tacking it onto bills they can force it through with by holding congress over a barrel. "If you want this, you have to agree to this too." I view this as malpractice and a corrupt way of introducing legislation, but this seems to be an accepted way of behaving which leaves me aghast every time I see it.
cgriswald 8y ago
> I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. I have two friends who openly advocate for this method of removing guns from the US. Regardless, I think this is something gun owners fear. When Canada had a registration list, it seized weapons that were legal when purchased and later made illegal by bureaucratic decision, without compensation.
- balabaster 8y ago
  Indeed. I've also known people who had legally owned antique weapons they'd been grandfathered by deceased parents illegally seized and had to fight through the courts to get them back. They got them back eventually, but not everyone is that lucky.
forgottenpass 8y ago
>I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. So gun owners shouldn't fear gun registries as a precursor to prosecution? Yet in the very next sentence you advocate for prosecuting gun owners under a strict liability that holds them responsible for anything that happens using their gun. >But you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'd say you've already gone too far when you criminalize someone getting their property stolen.
- balabaster 8y ago
  Why shouldn't you be held under strict liability for anything that happens using your gun? It is a tool for killing. If it is used to kill someone because you didn't store it responsibly, it was stolen and you didn't report it stolen, why exactly shouldn't you be held accountable for your part in that? You were accessory to a crime by your negligence to store your weapon responsibly. I also didn't say you shouldn't fear gun registries being a precursor to confiscation. I suggested that the spoken intent is to hold gun owners to a higher standard of care of their weapons. I totally understand that there may be unspoken intent to use it as a precursor to confiscation, and while I don't believe this to be so, you're right to be wary of this. But frankly I think too many gun owners are criminally complacent about ownership and storage of their weapons. A gun is serious, it should be treated as such. Store it safely and properly, if you don't store it safely and properly and you're caught in that position (i.e. by having it stolen, not reporting it as stolen and used in a crime), then you should be at least be charged for negligence. I don't think there's anything wrong with this - a gun kills. I don't care how you want to spin "guns don't kill people, people kill people," a gun is a weapon that is designed to kill, or at the very least used as a threat to kill. It should always be treated as such. I don't criminalize people for ownership or having their property stolen. If you can prove it was stored responsibly and your legally approved gun safe was forcefully broken into and your weapon stolen and you reported it as stolen at the time you discovered it, you have absolved yourself of the responsibility of its use in a crime. You have acted responsibly. No charges should be laid against you. If it was laying around on your night stand and an opportunist kid broke into your house and stole it, loaded and ready to kill, you didn't report it stolen, and it falls into the hands of someone who uses it in a crime, guess what? You're responsible for contributing to that and should be held accountable for your part in that to some appropriate degree. That degree in my mind is at least criminal negligence, in the same way as letting your baby die in the back of a car on a hot day because you forgot about them or getting into a car accident and killing someone because you were texting and not paying attention. What about how bar tenders can be charged for over-serving someone alcohol who then gets into a car and kills someone because they're driving over the legal blood alcohol limit? Your action, or inaction contributed to your weapon being used in a crime. You can argue that if it wasn't your gun, it would've been someone else's all you like. The fact is, it wasn't someone else's, it was yours. If it was someone else's, they would be charged with the same thing you were if they'd acted with the same negligence you did. If you have a gun, it is your responsibly to store it safely, treat it with the gravity it's warranted. If it is stolen, report it as such. Be a responsible gun owner. If everyone treated their weapons with this amount of care, nobody would be screaming for gun registries.

balabaster 8y ago

They also have a history of pushing through unpopular legislation by tacking it onto bills they can force it through with by holding congress over a barrel. "If you want this, you have to agree to this too." I view this as malpractice and a corrupt way of introducing legislation, but this seems to be an accepted way of behaving which leaves me aghast every time I see it.

cgriswald 8y ago

> I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. I have two friends who openly advocate for this method of removing guns from the US. Regardless, I think this is something gun owners fear. When Canada had a registration list, it seized weapons that were legal when purchased and later made illegal by bureaucratic decision, without compensation.

balabaster 8y ago
Indeed. I've also known people who had legally owned antique weapons they'd been grandfathered by deceased parents illegally seized and had to fight through the courts to get them back. They got them back eventually, but not everyone is that lucky.

forgottenpass 8y ago

>I disagree with gun registries being a precursor to confiscation and prosecution. So gun owners shouldn't fear gun registries as a precursor to prosecution? Yet in the very next sentence you advocate for prosecuting gun owners under a strict liability that holds them responsible for anything that happens using their gun. >But you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'd say you've already gone too far when you criminalize someone getting their property stolen.

balabaster 8y ago
Why shouldn't you be held under strict liability for anything that happens using your gun? It is a tool for killing. If it is used to kill someone because you didn't store it responsibly, it was stolen and you didn't report it stolen, why exactly shouldn't you be held accountable for your part in that? You were accessory to a crime by your negligence to store your weapon responsibly. I also didn't say you shouldn't fear gun registries being a precursor to confiscation. I suggested that the spoken intent is to hold gun owners to a higher standard of care of their weapons. I totally understand that there may be unspoken intent to use it as a precursor to confiscation, and while I don't believe this to be so, you're right to be wary of this. But frankly I think too many gun owners are criminally complacent about ownership and storage of their weapons. A gun is serious, it should be treated as such. Store it safely and properly, if you don't store it safely and properly and you're caught in that position (i.e. by having it stolen, not reporting it as stolen and used in a crime), then you should be at least be charged for negligence. I don't think there's anything wrong with this - a gun kills. I don't care how you want to spin "guns don't kill people, people kill people," a gun is a weapon that is designed to kill, or at the very least used as a threat to kill. It should always be treated as such. I don't criminalize people for ownership or having their property stolen. If you can prove it was stored responsibly and your legally approved gun safe was forcefully broken into and your weapon stolen and you reported it as stolen at the time you discovered it, you have absolved yourself of the responsibility of its use in a crime. You have acted responsibly. No charges should be laid against you. If it was laying around on your night stand and an opportunist kid broke into your house and stole it, loaded and ready to kill, you didn't report it stolen, and it falls into the hands of someone who uses it in a crime, guess what? You're responsible for contributing to that and should be held accountable for your part in that to some appropriate degree. That degree in my mind is at least criminal negligence, in the same way as letting your baby die in the back of a car on a hot day because you forgot about them or getting into a car accident and killing someone because you were texting and not paying attention. What about how bar tenders can be charged for over-serving someone alcohol who then gets into a car and kills someone because they're driving over the legal blood alcohol limit? Your action, or inaction contributed to your weapon being used in a crime. You can argue that if it wasn't your gun, it would've been someone else's all you like. The fact is, it wasn't someone else's, it was yours. If it was someone else's, they would be charged with the same thing you were if they'd acted with the same negligence you did. If you have a gun, it is your responsibly to store it safely, treat it with the gravity it's warranted. If it is stolen, report it as such. Be a responsible gun owner. If everyone treated their weapons with this amount of care, nobody would be screaming for gun registries.