8 ms·

The problem with gun registration versus car registration is that there is no real use to having a list of car owners, other than legitimate ones. But, a list

by cgore 13y ago

The problem with gun registration versus car registration is that there is no real use to having a list of car owners, other than legitimate ones. But, a list of people with weapons would be the first thing any would-be dictator would love to have. I realize I am inviting the wrath of Godwin's Law here, but, as a real-world historical example of the threat of gun registration, the Nazis: "In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group." "In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”" http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-...

talmand 13y ago
Oh, people down voting because of Godwin's law? Fine... Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, Anti-Communists/Stalinists in Soviet Union, Anti-Communists in China, Mayan Indians in Guatemala, Christians in Uganda, General Population in Cambodia There are lots of examples of gun confiscations preceding mass murders. Not that every gun confiscations lead to mass murder since there are examples of that not happening. But to ignore the possibilities in some areas of the world is just being naive.
- pjungwir 13y ago
  Even if the situation does not progress to dictatorship or mass murder, gun registration often (inexorably?) leads to confiscation. See Canada and New York State.
  - frenchy 13y ago
    Confiscation in Canada? I'm not well informed on gun laws but I know we have plenty of gun carriers (registered and illegal), most of them live in rural areas.
    - scott_karana 13y ago
      Check out the controversy over the recent High River, Alberta gun seizures. During a recent flood, numerous evacuated homes that were entered by the RCMP had their houseowners' firearms seized, regardless of whether they were stored securely and legally. A total of 542 firearms were seized. There are ongoing debates as to whether any homes were entered for the sole purpose of seizure.[1] "Plenty" of gun carriers is a stretch too, since Authorizations to Carry are very uncommon for private citizens, and typically are only issued to Brinks-truck operators and trappers in areas with high wildlife risk. Only ~9000 are issued per year.[2] [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-felt-political-pressure-over-alberta-flood-gun-seizures-1.2442859 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-felt-political-pressure... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-may-carry-handguns-in-canada-1.1135084 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-may-carry-handguns-in-cana...
      - talmand 13y ago
        The same thing happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Personally, I would have no problem with this as long as they logged the seized property correctly and provided means for the owners to retrieve their property at a later date.
        gknoy 13y ago
        I'd trust such a "Means to retrieve" about as far as I can throw it. FOIA requests are often denied or returned completely redacted, and I'd expect any similar "give me back my gun" requests to be either rubber stamped, or mired in enough red tape that it would be more cost effective to buy a new one.
        scott_karana 13y ago
- quanticle 13y ago
  The problem is that there are lots of examples of gun confiscations that did not lead to mass murder as well. If we look at Britain, or Australia, or Japan, all those regions once allowed gun ownership on much more liberal terms than they allow today. In the transition from having a liberal gun ownership policy to having a strict gun ownership policy, guns were confiscated. But I don't see anyone saying that Britain has turned into a totalitarian dictatorship.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I said much the same thing. I fail to see how it's a problem in any discussion about gun control and/or confiscations. Some people would claim is on its way to totalitarianism considering the rise in government intrusion and control in people's lives. But that's a different debate.
beat 13y ago
Godwin's Law exists for a reason, man. (signed, a pro-gun liberal who loathes your bad line of reasoning)
- Crito 13y ago
  Not really. Godwin's law itself is just an observation on the nature of online conversations. (And arguably commentary on the popularity of fallacious reductio ad hitlerum style arguments) Godwin's Law has become some sort of notion of mentioning Hitler being a "forfeit" of sorts. The reason this has become popular is because low barrier-to-entry comment sniping is great fun and this version of Godwin's Law makes it child's play. However it is nothing to be respected. There is a line of reasoning that states that comparisons to Hitler are damaging to society because they necessarily "cheapen" the memory of what the Nazis were and did. I might concede that this is true in extreme cases ("You won't let me go to the dance with Jimmy? You are literally Hitler!" may qualify. Certainly that is at least obnoxious and fallacious) but I do not accept that line of argument across the board. Nobody is going to walk away from the above comment thinking that the Holocaust was not as bad as they originally thought. Another, weaker, argument given in support of Godwin's Law is that comparisons to Hitler are inappropriate wherever and whenever the subject is less extreme or serious than the Holocaust. I submit that refusing to compare things to Hitler unless they are demonstrably already as bad as Hitler cripples our ability to learn useful lessons from that dark period in history. If we wait until a situation is as bad as the situation in 1930s Germany, then we have waited to the point that rhetoric alone is no longer of use. Comparisons to that era in German history are therefore only useful in situations that are not as dire.
  - beat 13y ago
    Godwin's Law is important because it shows the cost of attaching baggage to your arguments. I think that if you can argue that something is bad by invoking Hitler, you can argue that something is bad without invoking Hitler. It's not just that going Godwin is tacky. It is, or should be, a sign of rhetorical weakness. I don't think the problem described by Godwin's Law is that bad arguments cheapen Hitler. I think the problem is that Hitler cheapens one's arguments, unless one is arguing about genocide. Sure, you can draw lesser lessons from Hitler's lesser crimes (ie gun control), but the implication, intentional or not, is that the lesser crime you're arguing about is on par with the Holocaust.
mxfh 13y ago
It's a myth that Hitler Nazi movement employed gun control to any amount to gain power, it merely employed it as an additional mean once it was there, owning a gun wasn't really of much help at that point. Also it just brushes over that facts that just 12 years before that guns were outlawed completely after WWI in Germany (analog to 2001 as of today), that the Weimar Republic witnessed some rampaging street violence between the different anti-democratic forces and that the main part of the executive wing didn't like democracy ever and had sympathy for nationalistic forces. The Nazi Party was backed by the majority of the German population in a general election in 1933 which makes pretty made pretty much most of the German population an "ultimate extremist group". In my view Halbrook is more of a pro-gun rights lawyer who wants to sell books than a historian. Heck it weren't even the Nazis who came up with this in Germany. It were the ruling monarchist in 1878 with their "Sozialistengesetze" who denied Social Democrats, Socialists and Communists the right to acquire or own guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws
- WildUtah 13y ago
  The Nazis never won over a third of the vote in an open multi party election in Germany. The insider establishment parties chose to hand power over to the Nazis rather than allow reformers or Communists to threaten entrenched wealth and monopoly power.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
Intermernet 13y ago
For an alternative view, you should watch John Oliver's 3 part Daily Show special on gun control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&feature=sharecontrol&list=PLoO6eym0L0F3mJ7qk4ogi8loeiMH8Osrj http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&feature=sharecont...
derleth 13y ago
The government doesn't care about your rifles. Not even your semi-automatic ones with sights and stocks and lasers and so on. They barely even care about a well-trained militia full of people who are angry with them: The US Armed Forces destroyed something a lot scarier than anything the NRA could muster when it steamrollered Iraq in 2003. So get off your horse about needing guns to protect yourself from the government. The government could destroy you and your guns in a second if it wanted to. If you want to be persuasive, stick to defending yourself against home invasion. That's a band-aid on a serious problem, but at least it's a historically and logically honest argument.

by cgore 13y ago

talmand 13y ago

Oh, people down voting because of Godwin's law? Fine... Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, Anti-Communists/Stalinists in Soviet Union, Anti-Communists in China, Mayan Indians in Guatemala, Christians in Uganda, General Population in Cambodia There are lots of examples of gun confiscations preceding mass murders. Not that every gun confiscations lead to mass murder since there are examples of that not happening. But to ignore the possibilities in some areas of the world is just being naive.

pjungwir 13y ago
Even if the situation does not progress to dictatorship or mass murder, gun registration often (inexorably?) leads to confiscation. See Canada and New York State.
- frenchy 13y ago
  Confiscation in Canada? I'm not well informed on gun laws but I know we have plenty of gun carriers (registered and illegal), most of them live in rural areas.
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    Check out the controversy over the recent High River, Alberta gun seizures. During a recent flood, numerous evacuated homes that were entered by the RCMP had their houseowners' firearms seized, regardless of whether they were stored securely and legally. A total of 542 firearms were seized. There are ongoing debates as to whether any homes were entered for the sole purpose of seizure.[1] "Plenty" of gun carriers is a stretch too, since Authorizations to Carry are very uncommon for private citizens, and typically are only issued to Brinks-truck operators and trappers in areas with high wildlife risk. Only ~9000 are issued per year.[2] [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-felt-political-pressure-over-alberta-flood-gun-seizures-1.2442859 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-felt-political-pressure... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-may-carry-handguns-in-canada-1.1135084 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-may-carry-handguns-in-cana...
    - talmand 13y ago
      The same thing happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Personally, I would have no problem with this as long as they logged the seized property correctly and provided means for the owners to retrieve their property at a later date.
      - gknoy 13y ago
        I'd trust such a "Means to retrieve" about as far as I can throw it. FOIA requests are often denied or returned completely redacted, and I'd expect any similar "give me back my gun" requests to be either rubber stamped, or mired in enough red tape that it would be more cost effective to buy a new one.
      - scott_karana 13y ago
quanticle 13y ago
The problem is that there are lots of examples of gun confiscations that did not lead to mass murder as well. If we look at Britain, or Australia, or Japan, all those regions once allowed gun ownership on much more liberal terms than they allow today. In the transition from having a liberal gun ownership policy to having a strict gun ownership policy, guns were confiscated. But I don't see anyone saying that Britain has turned into a totalitarian dictatorship.
- talmand 13y ago
  I said much the same thing. I fail to see how it's a problem in any discussion about gun control and/or confiscations. Some people would claim is on its way to totalitarianism considering the rise in government intrusion and control in people's lives. But that's a different debate.

beat 13y ago

Godwin's Law exists for a reason, man. (signed, a pro-gun liberal who loathes your bad line of reasoning)

Crito 13y ago
Not really. Godwin's law itself is just an observation on the nature of online conversations. (And arguably commentary on the popularity of fallacious reductio ad hitlerum style arguments) Godwin's Law has become some sort of notion of mentioning Hitler being a "forfeit" of sorts. The reason this has become popular is because low barrier-to-entry comment sniping is great fun and this version of Godwin's Law makes it child's play. However it is nothing to be respected. There is a line of reasoning that states that comparisons to Hitler are damaging to society because they necessarily "cheapen" the memory of what the Nazis were and did. I might concede that this is true in extreme cases ("You won't let me go to the dance with Jimmy? You are literally Hitler!" may qualify. Certainly that is at least obnoxious and fallacious) but I do not accept that line of argument across the board. Nobody is going to walk away from the above comment thinking that the Holocaust was not as bad as they originally thought. Another, weaker, argument given in support of Godwin's Law is that comparisons to Hitler are inappropriate wherever and whenever the subject is less extreme or serious than the Holocaust. I submit that refusing to compare things to Hitler unless they are demonstrably already as bad as Hitler cripples our ability to learn useful lessons from that dark period in history. If we wait until a situation is as bad as the situation in 1930s Germany, then we have waited to the point that rhetoric alone is no longer of use. Comparisons to that era in German history are therefore only useful in situations that are not as dire.
- beat 13y ago
  Godwin's Law is important because it shows the cost of attaching baggage to your arguments. I think that if you can argue that something is bad by invoking Hitler, you can argue that something is bad without invoking Hitler. It's not just that going Godwin is tacky. It is, or should be, a sign of rhetorical weakness. I don't think the problem described by Godwin's Law is that bad arguments cheapen Hitler. I think the problem is that Hitler cheapens one's arguments, unless one is arguing about genocide. Sure, you can draw lesser lessons from Hitler's lesser crimes (ie gun control), but the implication, intentional or not, is that the lesser crime you're arguing about is on par with the Holocaust.

mxfh 13y ago

It's a myth that Hitler Nazi movement employed gun control to any amount to gain power, it merely employed it as an additional mean once it was there, owning a gun wasn't really of much help at that point. Also it just brushes over that facts that just 12 years before that guns were outlawed completely after WWI in Germany (analog to 2001 as of today), that the Weimar Republic witnessed some rampaging street violence between the different anti-democratic forces and that the main part of the executive wing didn't like democracy ever and had sympathy for nationalistic forces. The Nazi Party was backed by the majority of the German population in a general election in 1933 which makes pretty made pretty much most of the German population an "ultimate extremist group". In my view Halbrook is more of a pro-gun rights lawyer who wants to sell books than a historian. Heck it weren't even the Nazis who came up with this in Germany. It were the ruling monarchist in 1878 with their "Sozialistengesetze" who denied Social Democrats, Socialists and Communists the right to acquire or own guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Socialist_Laws

WildUtah 13y ago
The Nazis never won over a third of the vote in an open multi party election in Germany. The insider establishment parties chose to hand power over to the Nazis rather than allow reformers or Communists to threaten entrenched wealth and monopoly power.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

Intermernet 13y ago

For an alternative view, you should watch John Oliver's 3 part Daily Show special on gun control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&feature=sharecontrol&list=PLoO6eym0L0F3mJ7qk4ogi8loeiMH8Osrj http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&feature=sharecont...

derleth 13y ago

The government doesn't care about your rifles. Not even your semi-automatic ones with sights and stocks and lasers and so on. They barely even care about a well-trained militia full of people who are angry with them: The US Armed Forces destroyed something a lot scarier than anything the NRA could muster when it steamrollered Iraq in 2003. So get off your horse about needing guns to protect yourself from the government. The government could destroy you and your guns in a second if it wanted to. If you want to be persuasive, stick to defending yourself against home invasion. That's a band-aid on a serious problem, but at least it's a historically and logically honest argument.