Thread: Geuss Who? Phillip Alpers Chimes In

Because the criminals, that already possess firearms, are going to willingly come forward and add them to a registar.
Obvious when you think about it, I wonder if he believes in unicorns too ?

Originally Posted by Frogfeatures

Because the criminals, that already possess firearms, are going to willingly come forward and add them to a registar.
Obvious when you think about it, I wonder if he believes in unicorns too ?

and rocking horse shit

Originally Posted by Frogfeatures

Because the criminals, that already possess firearms, are going to willingly come forward and add them to a registar.
Obvious when you think about it, I wonder if he believes in unicorns too ?

This is a weak and easily defeated argument, registration isn't about getting back the firearms that're already in criminal hands, it's about deterring the flow of firearms from a LFAO to unlicenced people by being able to trace them and to be able to trace stolen firearms back to a crime and possibly lead to charges in the justice system.

I'm not for or against registration, but trying these strawman arguments doesn't help your cause.

Originally Posted by Savage1

This is a weak and easily defeated argument, registration isn't about getting back the firearms that're already in criminal hands, it's about deterring the flow of firearms from a LFAO to unlicenced people by being able to trace them and to be able to trace stolen firearms back to a crime and possibly lead to charges in the justice system.

I'm not for or against registration, but trying these strawman arguments doesn't help your cause.

Actually its a legitimate argument. The reality is that people who already don't comply with the law are not going to comply with new ones.

We can assume that whatever the supply chain might be presently, criminals will simply modify the means they need to obtain what they require if they need to. And it is not established that legitimate owners are that supply chain in the first place, in any more that in isloated situations. The recent enquiry failed to even attempt to establish that, concentrating on what they saw as solutions for an issue not even established... like this one, that only has a material effect on the legal firearms community.

The argument for registration on the other hand is a ludicous argument that somehow the start of a registration system will somehow encapsulate all the existing firearms in the system along with all new firearms, thus having a material deterent effect on the possibility that legitimate legal owners will then be detered from passing ownership to illegitimate criminals.

I consider this generational stupidity, the previous manual sustem was abandoned for inaccuracy, cost and a lack of trust by those attempting to enforce the process for benefit. When that occurs these create more harm than benefit, which was why it was given away in the first place. This knowledge appears lost on the terminally stupid advocates who somehow cannot grasp that they will not be even statistically likely to provide any registration system with more than about a 50% accuracy level if they attempted, at huge cost and for no actual benefit.

Do you think the criminals worry about a gun registration system... ? The are the ones the advocates are actually tying to effect aren't they..?

Pardon my cynicism... but the fools in this discussion are those that think that is the aim. The anti gun lobby see registration as a means of control of the legitimate gun owners, which is where much of this comes from. The police policy people are either fooling themselves are are taking a very long term view for the same reasons.

In so far as illegitimate firearms are concerned, the worst thing that the police could do is to initiate registration or to promote it. They don't actually appear very capable of working that out yet do they?

Originally Posted by Sidney

Actually its a legitimate argument. The reality is that people who already don't comply with the law are not going to comply with new ones.

We can assume that whatever the supply chain might be presently, criminals will simply modify the means they need to obtain what they require if they need to. And it is not established that legitimate owners are that supply chain in the first place, in any more that in isloated situations. The recent enquiry failed to even attempt to establish that, concentrating on what they saw as solutions for an issue not even established... like this one, that only has a material effect on the legal firearms community.

The argument for registration on the other hand is a ludicous argument that somehow the start of a registration system will somehow encapsulate all the existing firearms in the system along with all new firearms, thus having a material deterent effect on the possibility that legitimate legal owners will then be detered from passing ownership to illegitimate criminals.

I consider this generational stupidity, the previous manual sustem was abandoned for inaccuracy, cost and a lack of trust by those attempting to enforce the process for benefit. When that occurs these create more harm than benefit, which was why it was given away in the first place. This knowledge appears lost on the terminally stupid advocates who somehow cannot grasp that they will not be even statistically likely to provide any registration system with more than about a 50% accuracy level if they attempted, at huge cost and for no actual benefit.

Do you think the criminals worry about a gun registration system... ? The are the ones the advocates are actually tying to effect aren't they..?

Pardon my cynicism... but the fools in this discussion are those that think that is the aim. The anti gun lobby see registration as a means of control of the legitimate gun owners, which is where much of this comes from. The police policy people are either fooling themselves are are taking a very long term view for the same reasons.

In so far as illegitimate firearms are concerned, the worst thing that the police could do is to initiate registration or to promote it. They don't actually appear very capable of working that out yet do they?

Thank you Sidney.

I would hasten to add: what gun crime has been solved by the use of registration? The Takanini MSSA's that were recovered - has being able to trace these back to the original owner helped? How long do you think a firearm maintains it's serial number after theft? Does knowing it has been stolen actually help solve the crime?
Seriously - the anti-rhetoric would benefit from working with some of the most vetted people in the country.
It is a cliche now, and exceptionally obvious but some (and the media in particular) fail to grasp this: criminals are the problem...

Originally Posted by Savage1

This is a weak and easily defeated argument, registration isn't about getting back the firearms that're already in criminal hands, it's about deterring the flow of firearms from a LFAO to unlicenced people by being able to trace them and to be able to trace stolen firearms back to a crime and possibly lead to charges in the justice system.

I'm not for or against registration, but trying these strawman arguments doesn't help your cause.

I think that about the only cases where this has happened here in the past is where someone on the inside in the Police system supplied shopping list information.

Originally Posted by Savage1

This is a weak and easily defeated argument, registration isn't about getting back the firearms that're already in criminal hands, it's about deterring the flow of firearms from a LFAO to unlicenced people by being able to trace them and to be able to trace stolen firearms back to a crime and possibly lead to charges in the justice system.

What about the non-compliance rate and the massive cost that has almost zero benefit to society like what happened in Canada?

That would be my main argument as to why registration is a waste of time, therefore it strengthens a case for it being much more then that when gun registration is pushed by the MSM, police and policy makers. They simply ignore these very facts of it being a pointless waste of time and a huge financial burden to an already under re-sourced, under-funded govt organisation.

Why do these people push for something that has such little effect in stopping criminals getting firearms unlawfully, you have to ask yourself that question.

...So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported. This would put the murder machine corporations out of business for good, and cut the money supply to the NRA/GOA. As money dries up, the political capital needed for new controls will be greatly reduced...

...A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.

We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us...

Originally Posted by Savage1

This is a weak and easily defeated argument, registration isn't about getting back the firearms that're already in criminal hands, it's about deterring the flow of firearms from a LFAO to unlicenced people by being able to trace them and to be able to trace stolen firearms back to a crime and possibly lead to charges in the justice system.

I'm not for or against registration, but trying these strawman arguments doesn't help your cause.

I am going out on a limb here with a couple of points so please read ALL of the comment.

Registration is potentially a good idea, however, there is a limit to how much money we can spend as a country and the government coffers are not bottomless. As such, the money spent on registration, in my view would be far more beneficial to be spent where it will make a bigger difference. Things like more police and resources to pursue criminals etc and reduce crime. Registration also has the down side that it will be as open to corruption and errors as all of our current system. It will only take ONE accidental attachment of the list to an email and a shopping list for all to see is available. This wont happen they say, neither will a mass email drop of beneficiary's and medical details to incorrect recipients...Neither will this tech stop teachers being paid correctly.....

As for charges and punishment in the system- even if we catch a criminal with a home made pistol, loaded and on his person when searched, WITH drug paraphenalia AND another home made rifle and ammunition what to the judicary do....? Home detention for a tattooist who WORKS at home and admits being paid in drugs....!!!! That needs fixing well before we go down the registration path.

I simply feel that there are better ways to deal with these issues with the resources we have as a country than registration will ever manage. And that those pushing for registration (Alpers, Cahill, and O'Conner) are only appealing to those who know as little as they do about the truth. Or worse, that they know truthfully how ineffective it will be and are pushing it anyway for their own agendas.