Thread: Geuss Who? Phillip Alpers Chimes In

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...