5 ms·

> I don't mind that the government does a sanity check on whether a given citizen should own a gun; but if they've decided I'm responsible enough to own a gun I

by Cushman 14y ago

> I don't mind that the government does a sanity check on whether a given citizen should own a gun; but if they've decided I'm responsible enough to own a gun I don't really think it's any of their business if I own 2 guns or 12, any more than it's any of their business knowing I own a MacBook, read /. over morning coffee, or bought Star Wars on blu-ray from Amazon 3 weeks ago. How about in the context of having recovered a gun from a crime, and wanting to trace it to the supplier? My understanding is that most illegal guns were first purchased legally.

rdl 14y ago
One idea someone proposed was putting the name of the buyer encrypted with a (key physically recorded on the gun) into storage each time, so if the gun is recovered, and the secret exposed, government could trace the chain from manufacturer to last known legal transfer buyer. I don't think there's a problem with people knowing who owns a specific gun; the problem is knowing what guns a specific person owns.
- nthj 14y ago
  I wouldn't trust the government to not intercept gun shipments from the warehouse with an NSA-style gag order & read in all the secrets ahead of time. You'd have to be able to stamp the secret at purchase time in the presence of the buyer, which is both doable, and works retroactively on guns manufactured prior to the legislation. > I don't think there's a problem with people knowing who owns a specific gun; the problem is knowing what guns a specific person owns. Exactly. Well put.
hga 14y ago
Errr, what are you trying to accomplish here? Most traces dead end at the point the gun was stolen, the whole registration and trace thing is pretty much never useful in solving a crime. Now there is some merit in discouraging straw purchases, which are a more than tiny but not "large" source of guns used in crimes, but that's not likely to prevent many criminals from procuring weapons, which in theory is what we're most interested in. Whereas gun confiscations are always preceded by registration unless they're done during a revolution, so there's a lot of resistance to anything that smacks of registration.
- rdl 14y ago
  I can't find the stats to cite, but straw purchases are a major source of handguns for gangs. They're not the majority of weapons IIRC, but the majority of weapons-actually-used. (this was ~8 years ago that I heard it, and it was being used as an example about something else, so it may be correct, but it came from an LAPD guy)
  - hga 14y ago
    And these gangs, would they by any chance be involved in drug distribution? Drugs which are imported by the ton? I.e. I think its a mistake to say "if we can stop this source we'll stop them from getting them altogether". Great Britain, which has the great advantage of being an island, doesn't provide a encouraging example after their total bans.

by Cushman 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

One idea someone proposed was putting the name of the buyer encrypted with a (key physically recorded on the gun) into storage each time, so if the gun is recovered, and the secret exposed, government could trace the chain from manufacturer to last known legal transfer buyer. I don't think there's a problem with people knowing who owns a specific gun; the problem is knowing what guns a specific person owns.

nthj 14y ago
I wouldn't trust the government to not intercept gun shipments from the warehouse with an NSA-style gag order & read in all the secrets ahead of time. You'd have to be able to stamp the secret at purchase time in the presence of the buyer, which is both doable, and works retroactively on guns manufactured prior to the legislation. > I don't think there's a problem with people knowing who owns a specific gun; the problem is knowing what guns a specific person owns. Exactly. Well put.

hga 14y ago

Errr, what are you trying to accomplish here? Most traces dead end at the point the gun was stolen, the whole registration and trace thing is pretty much never useful in solving a crime. Now there is some merit in discouraging straw purchases, which are a more than tiny but not "large" source of guns used in crimes, but that's not likely to prevent many criminals from procuring weapons, which in theory is what we're most interested in. Whereas gun confiscations are always preceded by registration unless they're done during a revolution, so there's a lot of resistance to anything that smacks of registration.

rdl 14y ago
I can't find the stats to cite, but straw purchases are a major source of handguns for gangs. They're not the majority of weapons IIRC, but the majority of weapons-actually-used. (this was ~8 years ago that I heard it, and it was being used as an example about something else, so it may be correct, but it came from an LAPD guy)
- hga 14y ago
  And these gangs, would they by any chance be involved in drug distribution? Drugs which are imported by the ton? I.e. I think its a mistake to say "if we can stop this source we'll stop them from getting them altogether". Great Britain, which has the great advantage of being an island, doesn't provide a encouraging example after their total bans.