"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug wrote:

By "go after," I assume you mean confiscation. In furtherance of the
5th


WRONG ... WRONG.... WRONG. I meant to find out who has the
guns... aka account for them and not take them away unless in doing
so, they have a criminal record, mentally treated, etc.. . I keep
saying I believe people have a right to guns but I don't want certain
types to have those same rights. People seem to want to put a twist
on my words or meaning or disect my words out of context.

Ah, my misapprehension. Sorry for the confusion.

If we did follow your prescription - tag each gun to an owner, that huge
amount of effort would do little to diminish gun crime. Most studies
indicate that 85% or so of gun crime is perpetrated by guns obtained
illegally. That is, the gun was stolen in a burglary, obtained via a straw
purchase, found in the bottom of a CrackerJack box, and the like. So is
your proposal worth it?

Canada tried EXACTLY what you propose in 1993. To date, it has cost the
Canadian federal government about $66 million for a country with one-tenth
the population and only 4% of the number of guns in the US*. In April,
2012 the whole idea what scuttled as being, unworkable, expensive, and
totally without a single redeeming social value.



You dropped nearly $1 Billion on the cost of the Canadian Long Gun Registry