On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:46:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
. ..

On 2/1/2013 10:56 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 1:07:18 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:14 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:


snip


Laws should be passed ONLY if they have some logical connection with the

goal to be achieved. Gun registration has *no* connection with

preventing gun violence. It doesn't even serve a useful purpose for

trying to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes.

Gun registration would help to achieve those goals by making it more
difficult for criminals to get the guns that they use to commit the
crimes.

No, it wouldn't make it more difficult in the least. A criminal who
steals a gun doesn't know, nor care, if that gun is registered or not.
And registration doesn't prevent, deter or discourage a criminal from
buying a gun. A background check might help there, but not registration.

================================================= =====================
(EH)

Registration is about restricting the transfer of guns from legal purchasers
to criminals. If you have registration and a good database, and a criminal
is picked up in possession of a gun, you first get the criminal on the
possession charge, even if he didn't use it to commit a crime. Then you've
got him on a possession of *stolen property* charge. Depending on how he
pleads, you may also get him on a burglary or other theft charge. Or, you
have him on an illegal purchase charge. Depending on the state, all of these
are usually felonies.

In addition, you have the last legal owner on a charge of illegal sale or
failing to report a gun theft -- again, depending on the state. And if the
first retail buyer wasn't really legal, you have HIM on an illegal purchase,
and the retail seller, probably, on an illegal sale.

That's a lot of jail time. That's a pretty good deterrent at each end of the
transaction(s).

And there is much, much more that can be done to dry up criminal sales if
registration is followed up with some good laws. Gun nutz frequently refer
to gun laws in Switzerland and Israel as "good" examples. Here are some
follow-up laws those countries use to make it hard for criminals to get
guns.

In Switzerland, if your gun is stolen, you have 24 hours to report it. No
exceptions, no excuses. You're expected to be in constant control of your
guns. If you fail to do so, there is a heavy fine.

In Israel, almost any Israeli can get a gun, even BORROWING THEM FROM THE
POLICE!, for chrissake. Great law, huh? Here's the rest of it: If you fail
to get a license (with registration), and you're found in possession of a
gun, it's one year or two years of mandatory jail time, depending on the
circumstances. No parole. No early outs. So you have to get through the
license check and registration of the gun.

If your gun is lost or stolen, it's an automatic misdemeanor with a
substantial fine. No excuses. It doesn't matter if you report it right away,
because losing your gun or having your gun stolen is considered a prima
facie case that you "negligently failed to maintain control" of your gun. If
it's stolen from your home, you're guilty of a crime. If it's stolen from
your car or your person, you're guilty of a crime.

If these laws were universal in the US, former NRA Board member Sanford
Abrams would be in prison now for "losing" 650 guns from his gun store in
Parkville, Maryland.

Switzerland and Israel can enjoy easy access and fairly open possession and
carrying of guns because they don't have crazy laws, like ours, that
practically invite illegal transfer of guns to criminals. They have tough,
tough penalties for any transgressions. Responsibility, including legal
methods for transfer of possession, and requirements to secure possession of
guns you own, are part of their culture and their laws. Our gun nutz deny
responsibility because they have "rights," not responsibilities. With the
support of the NRA, they gut or resist our responsibility requirements on a
frequent basis, as part of a campaign of lunacy. They want to be able to
shoot Congressmen if they decide they're "tyrants," and they don't want
anybody to know that they have the means to do so.

That's the difference. That's why our lack of registration and the enabling
laws to discourage illicit transfer of guns results in a vast criminal
market of guns, and it's a large part of our culture and our outrageous
rates of gun crimes.

Are you catching on yet? You keep repeating your silly mantra that
"criminals don't care if their guns are registered," missing the point that
the purpose is to keep those guns out of criminal hands with a sensible
system of deterrents.

Maybe you should run for the NRA Board. You'd fit right in. d8-)


It all sounds like a good idea although it historically just has not
worked in America.

The Sullivan law was enacted in 1911 with the intent of keeping
concealable guns out of the hands of various nefarious people. History
has shown its success.... It is still in effect I believe and after
101 years there are obviously no guns in the hands of criminals in New
York.

In 1919 the Volstead Act was passed which eliminated the recreational
use of alcohol in the United states. another exciting success of law
over nature.

Of course murder, thievery, and numerous other anti social acts are
also "against the law" and as we all know, crime in the United states
is virtually non-existent.

One the other hand, New Hampshire, with nearly non-existent gun laws
has (I believe) the lowest gun crime/accident rate in the U.S.

--
Cheers,

John B.