Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So gun control is a hot topic cause of all the craziness and random shootings and I don't honestly see a pragmatic solution to the random mass shootings etc.

But the funny thing is, the gun control debate pretty much revolves around these random acts of violence. Whenever one occurs, it's only a matter of nano seconds before someone utters the question "is it time to talk about gun control yet?"

Meanwhile these shootings make up a tiny, almost invisible minority of the shootings in this country. And at the same time, ordinary gang killings and things of this nature has happen every single day. Our homicide rates are way higher than the rest if the industrialized world for this reason alone. 500-600 murders a year happen in the city of Chicago for this reason alone.

Here is where the pro gun people will say it's cause Chicago banned guns. This is selective reasoning at it's best, since 2 decades ago new York had around 2000 murders a year and now it's down to 400-500, and if anything NY has become more strict on guns during that time.

So this leads me to what I think is really one of the core issues: illegal guns.

Many guns that are originally sold on the market as legal guns are leaked on to the black market for the benefit of seasoned killers. Some are stolen... But many more are bought in straw purchases for the expressed propose of leaking them onto the black market.

I feel a sort of gun registry is the best defense against this sort of criminal behavior. Especially if you made it so anyone who bought a gun had to register it every few years ( physically proving their possession of the gun) as well as making it mandatory to report if the gun changes ownership through sale, theft, etc. This would make gun owners more accountable for their weapons and make it harder to leak legal guns onto the black market.

yes

Ima go with no, just for the sake of the fact that it defeats one of the reasons for the second amendment. If the government suddenly decided to confiscate guns or confiscate all semi-automatics, I certainly wouldn't want to make their job their easier by allowing them to track them all down.

**** Korea

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ima go with no, just for the sake of the fact that it defeats one of the reasons for the second amendment. If the government suddenly decided to confiscate guns or confiscate all semi-automatics, I certainly wouldn't want to make their job their easier by allowing them to track them all down.


Agreed.


All of the biggest mass murderers in history (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) first required the citizens to register their firearms; then they confiscated them; and then they slaughtered their defenseless citizens in cold blood.


The biggest mass murderers in history all agree: gun control works!! I have a t-shirt with those exact words on it with a picture of the big 3 mass murderers I mentioned above. Nice-looking shirt I bought from Alex Jones's "Infowars" website store along with several other nice-looking shirts. Just doing my part to help Alex in his fight against the globalist scum and leftist MSM liars. The fact that he is also someone who triggers the hell out of leftist snowflakes is just a nice bonus for helping to fund his operation lol.


Here's the shirt I was referring to:

https://www.infowarsstore.com/gear/apparel/mass-murderers-agree-gun-control-works-t-shirt.html

Funny how "Modern Society" likes to Blame the Guns Ability and Avalibility for the things that happen today....when it can really be placed on the Society itself....seeing as how the "Modern Society" just keeps getting more and more Secular....aka PROGRESSIVE!

Funny that.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Agreed.


All of the biggest mass murderers in history (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) first required the citizens to register their firearms; then they confiscated them; and then they slaughtered their defenseless citizens in cold blood.


The biggest mass murderers in history all agree: gun control works!! I have a t-shirt with those exact words on it with a picture of the big 3 mass murderers I mentioned above. Nice-looking shirt I bought from Alex Jones's "Infowars" website store along with several other nice-looking shirts. Just doing my part to help Alex in his fight against the globalist scum and leftist MSM liars. The fact that he is also someone who triggers the hell out of leftist snowflakes is just a nice bonus for helping to fund his operation lol.


Here's the shirt I was referring to:

https://www.infowarsstore.com/gear/apparel/mass-murderers-agree-gun-control-works-t-shirt.html
*points to Switzerland*

Even better: remove all gun control laws. Even allow people to have fully automatic machine guns (not submachine guns, the big boys).

Leave it that way for 2 years. See what changes on homicide (not gun homicide) rates.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ima go with no, just for the sake of the fact that it defeats one of the reasons for the second amendment. If the government suddenly decided to confiscate guns or confiscate all semi-automatics, I certainly wouldn't want to make their job their easier by allowing them to track them all down.

Bingo.

Originally posted by TempAccount
*points to Switzerland*


Yeah, but in Switzerland, if I'm not mistaken, all the men are actually required to own a firearm aren't they and even carry around with them for the nation's defense? It's not the same situation as the the 3 biggest mass murderers in history having an intent to confiscate all the guns after forcing people to register them.

Originally posted by mike brown
I feel a sort of gun registry is the best defense against this sort of criminal behavior. Especially if you made it so anyone who bought a gun had to register it every few years ( physically proving their possession of the gun) as well as making it mandatory to report if the gun changes ownership through sale, theft, etc. This would make gun owners more accountable for their weapons and make it harder to leak legal guns onto the black market.

Bingo. People have to show greater responsibility with their cars.

But make an exemption that any single-shot gun of .22 caliber (or smaller) is exempt, that way we're not interfering with the 2nd Amendment.

Car isn't a right. Next.

^ Thinks he countered something. Lolz.

Why I left an exemption.

He did counter it lol.

Yeah except Im not particularly worried about the government trying to confiscate a ton of people's cars.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah except Im not particularly worried about the government trying to confiscate a ton of people's cars.

Also I'm confused why a gun registry is good but it's bad to look at the social media accounts of people who wanna come here lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
Car isn't a right. Next.

Oh, damn! I didn't think about that...


Yeah, having cars or the equivalent of those in the US Constitution (buggies) is not a right.



But why? Instead of arguing semantics like this, let's operate in the spirit of those laws.



Does Robtard have a good point about licensing? Gun Licensing is more important or less important than car insurance and licensing?

I think anonymity from the government when it comes to firearms is more important than that of cars.

Yet in order to get a gun here I will have to go through like 12-16 hours of training by a licensed officer. They don't just do a background check and hand you a license for a firearm here.

In the end I'd say no: no point is good enough to justify gun registry as long as owning guns remains a right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Does Robtard have a good point about licensing? Gun Licensing is more important or less important than car insurance and licensing?

To get a drivers license you basically take a 6-month course when you are 15 and never have to take another course or test again as long as you renew your license before expiration.

How can we compare this with getting/owning a gun, make gun owners buy firearm insurance to even the score?

Originally posted by snowdragon
To get a drivers license you basically take a 6-month course when you are 15 and never have to take another course or test again as long as you renew your license before expiration.

How can we compare this with getting/owning a gun, make gun owners buy firearm insurance to even the score?

There's basic eye exams in between for driver's licence renewals. Maybe it's different in your state?

Cars (at least in Ca) have to be registered every year and they have to pass a smog check ever other year to see if they're operating correctly. You have to have year-round insurances to register your car every year.

Commercial Vehicles have the above and they have to pass regular inspection checks.

Let's compromise, what are the pro-registry people willing to put on the table to convince the anti-registry side to agree?

Originally posted by Robtard
There's basic eye exams in between for driver's licence renewals. Maybe it's different in your state?

Cars (at least in Ca) have to be registered every year and they have to pass a smog check ever other year to see if they're operating correctly. You have to have year-round insurances to register your car every year.

Commercial Vehicles have the above and they have to pass regular inspection checks.

It's the same but as long as you can breathe you can get a renewal, there isn't a skill qualifier or mental health test.

I wouldn't mind if there was a cert class you had to take to own a gun(annually/biannually) as well as basic mental wellness exams like mental competency exams similar to what's given to individuals suffering from dementia/age.

Yeah. This is All Lefty Fascist Bullshit.
Letting some Leftwing Nazis being in charge of doing the "Mental Welllness Exams" ?

Why don't we let People with Uncontrollable Spasms work in Nitroglycerin Factories while we are at it?

This whole thread is a ruse to hide a Fascist Agenda.

Originally posted by snowdragon
It's the same but as long as you can breathe you can get a renewal, there isn't a skill qualifier or mental health test.

I wouldn't mind if there was a cert class you had to take to own a gun(annually/biannually) as well as basic mental wellness exams like mental competency exams similar to what's given to individuals suffering from dementia/age.

Fair enough.

I don't see how those certification requirements on gun owners would be functionally possible without first implementing a gun registration. Without one, it'd be solely on the owners discretion to do it every year (or whatever period of time) and I don't think it's crazy to assume there would be a very large portion of the gun-owner-pool who simply wouldn't do it. Do you?

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough.

I don't see how those certification requirements on gun owners would be functionally possible without first implementing a gun registration. Without one, it'd be solely on the owners discretion to do it every year (or whatever period of time) and I don't think it's crazy to assume there would be a very large portion of the gun-owner-pool who simply wouldn't do it. Do you?


A gun ownership license can be granted without requiring a gun registration. You don't need to couple those two datasets.

However....if you're trying to make it just like a car, yeah, I see what you're trying to do.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's compromise, what are the pro-registry people willing to put on the table to convince the anti-registry side to agree?

Rank Choice Voting


Democrats in power wouldn't go for something like this in a million years.

Well letting the People actually have the Power of Choice has never been a thing the Democrats/Left have been in favor of..

There is no eye exam for driver's license renewal in my state (AL). You just have to pay the fee and that's it. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to go anywhere to get it renewed unless it's been 8 years since you had your picture taken for it in which case you have to go get your photo updated. You can renew over the internet.

I'm still wondering why gun registry is good, but it's bad to ask to see the social media accounts of people who wanna come here?

That's looney leftist logic for ya, Surt. Best not to dwell on that crazy "logic" for too long or it could drive you nutty.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, but in Switzerland, if I'm not mistaken, all the men are actually required to own a firearm aren't they and even carry around with them for the nation's defense? It's not the same situation as the the 3 biggest mass murderers in history having an intent to confiscate all the guns after forcing people to register them.

But you are mistaken.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
But you are mistaken.


Ok, my bad then. I could've sworn I heard that somewhere. Perhaps I had the countries mixed-up? Maybe it was Sweden perhaps?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Ok, my bad then. I could've sworn I heard that somewhere. Perhaps I had the countries mixed-up? Maybe it was Sweden perhaps?
The Swiss require all males to serve in the military and responsible gun-use is introduced at an early age from what I hear.

Guns must be registered, mental health checks are in place.


Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There is no eye exam for driver's license renewal in my state (AL). You just have to pay the fee and that's it. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to go anywhere to get it renewed unless it's been 8 years since you had your picture taken for it in which case you have to go get your photo updated. You can renew over the internet.
No wonder people in the south can't drive for shit. That's f*cked up. Considering how obese and unhealthy folks are down there, it's concerning to think that plenty of elderly people drive when they physically aren't in shape to.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's compromise, what are the pro-registry people willing to put on the table to convince the anti-registry side to agree?
You can keep your semi-autos and extended mags. Just register them all and trade in your empty mags to acquire new ammo. Limit the amount of ammo one can have on hand. (less than 100 rounds per gun sound fair?)

How is that a compromise?

Originally posted by TempAccount
The Swiss require all males to serve in the military and responsible gun-use is introduced at an early age from what I hear.

Guns must be registered, mental health checks are in place.


I knew it was something similar to what I was thinking. Thanks for clearing it up.






People in the south can generally drive just as well as people in any other state, dummy. Also, not everyone in the south is obese and unhealthy either. You are using untrue stereotypes to lump all southerners together. I'm sure next you'll probably be claiming we all sleep with our sisters and eat cornbread and grits three times a day as well lol.

In case you didn't know, most of the country as a whole is considered overweight and has an unhealthy diet, not just people in the south.








*sigh* No, for the reasons already mentioned above by several posters that is a very bad idea. Registering either guns or ammo is not a good idea. You're wrong as you often are on so many topics.

One more thing, once people reach a certain age in our state they may have to take an eye exam to renew their driver's license; just not sure and don't feel like checking at the moment. I'm only middle-aged so that may be why I haven't had to take one yet to renew my license.

Originally posted by Silent Master
How is that a compromise? lol what did you have in mind?
Me personally I don't care if individuals have access to military-grade equipment. If you can afford to buy a minigun by all means do it.

So my compromise is lift restrictions on owning certain kinds of weapons and require registration of firearms and ammunition.

Those who say "but the people must be able to fight back against the corrupt government derr" are out of touch with reality. Civilians don't have access to military grade hardware/resources, and the technological differences between the weapons on the two sides (that didn't exist in 18th century) means that a rebellion would be wiped out like the Indians resisting colonization.

Release a bio-weapon that the soldiers have secret vaccine protection against and watch the rebellion die out in days.

if people fear about the gun confiscation shit, register gun licenses, not guns themselves, easy as hell, works fine

you get people checked to be mentally sane and able to handle the gun, using a gun without the license being prohibited, but the state not caring if you really have the gun, how many, and where are you hiding them

hell, let's get all 18/21+ people to have a mental health check and basic mental ability/physical ability check for the guns

lots of countries have every person passing the specific age go to get themselves diagnosed for potential military service, it wouldn't be that different

Originally posted by TempAccount
lol what did you have in mind?
Me personally I don't care if individuals have access to military-grade equipment. If you can afford to buy a minigun by all means do it.

So my compromise is lift restrictions on owning certain kinds of weapons and require registration of firearms and ammunition.

Those who say "but the people must be able to fight back against the corrupt government derr" are out of touch with reality. Civilians don't have access to military grade hardware/resources, and the technological differences between the weapons on the two sides (that didn't exist in 18th century) means that a rebellion would be wiped out like the Indians resisting colonization.

Release a bio-weapon that the soldiers have secret vaccine protection against and watch the rebellion die out in days.

That's a interesting start, is there anything else you'd be willing to put on the table?

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm still wondering why gun registry is good, but it's bad to ask to see the social media accounts of people who wanna come here?

Beginning to think I'm not gonna get an answer from even a single person who is in favor of this registry, but decried the move to check the social media accounts of people who aren't even Americans.

Just make it so guns shoot starbursts instead of bullets.

That would only increase the US' obesity rate.

Starbursts have some pretty sharp edges and are quite hard.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Starburst-Candies.jpg/1200px-Starburst-Candies.jpg


...so yeah. I bet you could take out a whole bunch of Snowflakes with a SB 47.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ima go with no, just for the sake of the fact that it defeats one of the reasons for the second amendment. If the government suddenly decided to confiscate guns or confiscate all semi-automatics, I certainly wouldn't want to make their job their easier by allowing them to track them all down. this is the most common response and I frankly think we probably just disagree on what our priorities should be. I'm much more concerned about the actual murder rates in this country than I am about the hypothetical tyrannical government that's going to take your guns.

The point about Germany in the Nazi era is interesting since the Nazis basically grew to prominence as a paramilitary group which formed the SA. Essentially, the very kind of well regulated militia that is supposed to protect us from such a tyranny. So there's some irony in that.

The fact is.. if a government turns tyrannical and decided to confiscate all guns, finding the guns would only be step one. There has never been a country as big, heavily populated and armed to the teeth as the United States. So disarming the populace would most likely be a cluster**** of a civil war, a Syria on steroids, and I severely doubt that there is a serious threat of this scenario. So I guess I find it less than satisfying that we're giving carte blanche to criminals to am themselves to the teeth anonymously in order to prevent a far fetched hypothetical gun seizing dystopia.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's compromise, what are the pro-registry people willing to put on the table to convince the anti-registry side to agree? I'm willing to make an exception for certain guns that are unlikely to be used in crimes.... Like certain types of hunting rifles.

Also antiques should be exempt. And I would be fine with not charging the gun owner any money to register guns... The point of the policy is just to try to cut down on the illegal gun market, not penalize gun owners arbitrarily.

Also I'm not proposing banning any type of gun
I don't care if it's a machine gun as long as the damn thing is registered and doesn't fall into criminal hands.

Originally posted by mike brown
I'm willing to make an exception for certain guns that are unlikely to be used in crimes.... Like certain types of hunting rifles.

Also antiques should be exempt. And I would be fine with not charging the gun owner any money to register guns... The point of the policy is just to try to cut down on the illegal gun market, not penalize gun owners arbitrarily.

Also I'm not proposing banning any type of gun
I don't care if it's a machine gun as long as the damn thing is registered and doesn't fall into criminal hands.

You do know most crimes uses handguns right?

Originally posted by mike brown
I'm willing to make an exception for certain guns that are unlikely to be used in crimes.... Like certain types of hunting rifles.

Also antiques should be exempt. And I would be fine with not charging the gun owner any money to register guns... The point of the policy is just to try to cut down on the illegal gun market, not penalize gun owners arbitrarily.

Also I'm not proposing banning any type of gun
I don't care if it's a machine gun as long as the damn thing is registered and doesn't fall into criminal hands.


I'm not seeing any compromises here, just things that you want. what do the gun owners get for agreeing to a registry?

Their guns taken away from them...and it would be fun to see them TRY to take them.

Originally posted by SquallX
You do know most crimes uses handguns right? yeah. Hand guns should absolutely be registered. That's why I didn't mention them here.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm not seeing any compromises here, just things that you want. what do the gun owners get for agreeing to a registry? I don't know what it is you want that you think would make it worth while for you. Maybe you could give me an example.

The bottom line is the purpose of the policy is to cut down on the illegal gun market which is allowed to thrive primarily by straw purchases of guns on the legal market. This policy aims to make it harder to do that. I would think the fact that people are being shot daily by illegal guns which the cops can't usually trace should be incentive enough to put up with the mold inconvenience of registering weapons. If not then we just don't see eye to eye and there's nothing that I could offer that would satisfy you that wouldn't also render the policy inept at accomplishing the desired goal.

The point of the question is to see what is the most you'd be willing to offer in order to have the registry.

I'm basically asking what people's opinions are dude. This isn't a real negotiation ffs. If you don't want a registry then basically you can use this thread to explain why you don't think it's a good idea.

Like I said I don't know what you mean. Can you give me an example of something I could offer that would make it more appealing to you?

Whether it's a good idea or not doesn't matter if it never gets instituted.

Well if we can agree it's a good idea then I would think we would have a common interest in instituting it, rather than you trying to shake me down for something to get it implemented. This is a bizarre dispute tbh. Do you just not care about criminals having easy access to illegal and untraceable guns?

When did you stop beating your kids?

https://time.com/4100408/a-criminologists-case-against-gun-control/

Don't have a gun register. Let people buy all the guns they want.

Have them register ammunition instead. Have traceability codes on every round and every box so they can be linked back to the retailer and purchaser.

2nd Amendment upheld. Perpetrators more easily traced.

Wouldn't work, making bullets is easy.

Not for dumb black gangbangers it's not.