HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » What does this portend fo...

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:18 AM

What does this portend for future discussions of gun registries?

I saw this thread in GD (hat tip: Newsjock). Emphasis mine --

Momentum builds in Indiana to ban over-the-counter Sudafed

Source: Terre Haute Tribune-Star

Failed attempts to shut down illegal methamphetamine labs are sparking renewed efforts to require prescriptions for popular cold remedies and decongestants such as Sudafed.

Electronic tracking of over-the-counter cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine – the crucial ingredient in methamphetamine – hasn’t stopped the spread of meth labs as predicted. Last year, despite an electronic tracking system, Indiana led the nation in meth lab seizures, according to federal and state data.

...

Read more: http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/momentum-builds-to-stop-over-the-counter-sales/article_b824f3b4-2ea7-53b0-8160-035b995d496b.html


Where, then, is the efficacy of registries and microstamping?

44 replies, 4130 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply What does this portend for future discussions of gun registries? (Original post)
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 OP
A Round Tuit Nov 2014 #1
pablo_marmol Nov 2014 #16
on point Nov 2014 #2
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #3
on point Nov 2014 #5
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #6
upaloopa Nov 2014 #12
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #14
upaloopa Nov 2014 #22
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #23
upaloopa Nov 2014 #25
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #28
upaloopa Nov 2014 #29
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #32
blueridge3210 Nov 2014 #36
kioa Nov 2014 #37
upaloopa Nov 2014 #39
kioa Nov 2014 #40
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2014 #41
oneshooter Nov 2014 #38
kioa Nov 2014 #15
pablo_marmol Nov 2014 #17
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 #31
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #33
Alittleliberal Nov 2014 #34
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #35
virginia mountainman Nov 2014 #4
kioa Nov 2014 #7
Travis_0004 Nov 2014 #8
virginia mountainman Nov 2014 #10
pablo_marmol Nov 2014 #43
Jenoch Nov 2014 #9
upaloopa Nov 2014 #11
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #13
upaloopa Nov 2014 #18
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #19
upaloopa Nov 2014 #20
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #21
upaloopa Nov 2014 #24
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #26
upaloopa Nov 2014 #27
Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #30
beevul Nov 2014 #42
pablo_marmol Nov 2014 #44

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:28 AM

1. There is none!

 

Where, then, is the efficacy of registries and microstamping?

There is none! It has never worked, it will never work.

But it makes some people feeeeel good!

And now I await the attack from some holier-than-thou DUer who has a 99,000 post count which entitles him/her to make scathing observations on my state of mind and cast doubt upon my true liberal thoughts and actions.

Goddamn, I'm so tired of that shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Round Tuit (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:19 PM

16. Welcome, ART.


Not like I have much of a post count, but I too am sick of being typecasted as a RW'er simply because I demand that empirical evidence guide ALL public policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:37 AM

2. Specious. The argument link is nonsense. Sudafed is a consumable, while guns are not

If there was a comparison here, it would be sedated and bullets, not sedated and guns.

Gun registration is needed for all gun sales and for owners.

Probably ought to micro stamp them bullets too and record the sale of each one so we know who bought them.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:46 AM

3. Where would registration for guns succeed if it fails with sudafed?

When has microstamping ever solved a crime?

Just because you use the word "specious" doesn't make it so. You actually have to supply a basis for that assertion, not simply repeat you want the thing that appears to be valueless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:54 AM

5. Go Back and re-read. Sudafed is a consumable. Guns are not. Comparison is specious.

Sudafed is consumed and disappears quickly.
Guns are permanent fixtures, long lasting and registration lasts the life of the object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:02 AM

6. That doesn't explain how it will end the illicit use of a gun.

Career criminals approach registration as they do all other laws and life in general -- with callous disregard. It won't stop mass shootings because mass shooters already expect to not survive their rampages. It won't stop suicides.

What, exactly, will registration do except provide a database for confiscation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:09 PM

12. You seem paranoid. Confiscation? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:17 PM

14. There is no other practical use for registration.

And once that becomes apparent those who control the registry invariably claim that the only solution will be to begin collection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:01 PM

22. I have a .22 pistol. When I bought it it was registered to me.

It should not be sold to someone else without a background check. If it turns up in the hands of someone else who commits a crime with it I am in trouble.
Registration is used to reduce the chance of guns being sold without a background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:04 PM

23. Why would you sell to just any ol' person off the street?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:12 PM

25. I may want some quick cash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:28 PM

28. If it's truly quick cash you want having a cumbersome system of

wait times, fees and registration would incentivize you to operate outside the system.

Maybe if you were granted free access to the NICS system you could screen your potential buyers quickly and conveniently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:32 PM

29. I agree with your statement that someone

would take the chance of going around a complicated system

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:38 PM

32. Thank-you. Common ground is good.

I was recently baffled by the California decision to lower possession of a stolen firearm from a felony to a misdemeanor. Stolen weapons are what most gun crimes are committed with. I stated as much in the thread in this group about the referendum measure. I agreed with much of the referendum but thought this was a horrible rider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:02 PM

36. Law of unintended consequences?

 

Looks like the referendum was an "across the board" adjustment to the dollar value that defines Felony Theft versus Misdemeanor Theft and no one thought to exclude certain items.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:09 PM

37. Absolute nonsense. Not only does the article above contradict your conclusion,

 

so does the very existence of the black market.

Conversely, the evidence of registration of firearms leading to confiscation is myriad to the point of being the rule, not the exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kioa (Reply #37)

Tue Nov 18, 2014, 08:37 AM

39. In your mind yes not in the minds of

most of us,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 18, 2014, 09:45 AM

40. As impressive as this display of clairvoyance is...

 

There is a reason I provided examples & quotes, while you have provided opinion-barf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 18, 2014, 02:43 PM

41. You are not only wrong, but *demonstrably* wrong:

 










Are all you lot so resistant to inconvenient truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:43 PM

38. "I have a .22 pistol. When I bought it it was registered to me." Question for you

When you say "registered to me." are you refering to the 4473 yellow form. Or a required STATE registration? There is a very big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:18 PM

15. Registration has facilitated confiscation in Australia,

 

GB, NY, attempted confiscation of SKSs in California & led to the banning of every Class 3 rifle not registered by 1986.

The person whom introduced the Assault Weapons BAN is on record supporting confiscation "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it"

It's not 'paranoia'. It is the proven effect of registration & the stated goal of gun controllers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:23 PM

17. Oops, upa...........


Your lack of knowledge reveals itself yet again.

http://www.saf.org/journal/13/AbsolutistPoliticsinaModeratePackage.pdf

As true today as when it was originally written, given that the tactics of restrictionists haven't changed over time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:37 PM

31. Because sudafed isn't the only way to make Meth

It's like saying let's track only vodka sales to cut down on liqueur purchases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:40 PM

33. Wait. People with criminal intent circumvent laws? Shut the front door! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:44 PM

34. I think you might be confusing me for someone who is Anti-Gun

That's not the case, just pointing out why this is a false equivalency to gun registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alittleliberal (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:53 PM

35. Understood. Yet, my own point stands: Criminals skirt the law. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:52 AM

4. How do you plan to micro stamp bullets,

When they are so easy to make at home? Heck, even I make my own ammunition... Go ahead, mandate microstamping, I, and people with this common knowledge will make a lot of money! Want me to teach you how to make your own ammunition?

As for registration, what do you "plan" to do to the millions upon millions of guns already out their that are not registered? Past experience proves that most people will thumb their nose at it, and LOL outloud at it..

Who do you plan to send to enforce such a law, when over 90% of your "enforcers" don't agree with it?? Like the sheriffs in Colorado??

How do you plan to deal with them? Or do you plan to "eliminate" them?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:12 AM

7. You state that the comparison should be made with bullets and not guns

 

Then, in spite of the evidence that it doesn't work, suggest that bullets should be tracked in much the same way.

Ludicrous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:17 AM

8. microstamping would work until a criminal found a file and 3 minutes of spare time.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:41 AM

10. Don't worry travis..

They can close the "file" loophole with registration and background checks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 19, 2014, 03:59 AM

43. And after we close the "file loophole" we can get to work


closing the "pavement loophole".

Oh joy! The fun never ends!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:25 AM

9. The vast majority of meth is now manufactured

 

outside of the U.S. The law that makes it more difficult to buy Sudafed in large quantities has made it so the meth labs in the U.S. are mostly small operations i got this from a DEA agent who used to be part of a teqmwho were the first to go in and investigate meth labs after their initial discovery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:07 PM

11. I don't see a valid comparison

It's not like we sell as many guns as we sell over the counter sudafed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:15 PM

13. It's not an issue of data volume. It's the fact career criminals have this habit of

operating in complete disregard of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:24 PM

18. We want to reduce gun violence

The career criminal thing is part of the obfuscation as is this whole line of thinking.
Gun violence results from gun ownership. It isn't career criminals only that shoot people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:30 PM

19. No. Gun ownership does not lead to gun violence anymore than

Sudafed ownership leads to meth production. The object does not impose its will upon the owner; you're inverting the issue.

Nearly 70% of gun homicides are perpetrated by people with criminal records. Even then the absence of guns does not correspond to a reduction in violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #19)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:48 PM

20. Gun violence is commited by someone with

a gun. Anyone with a gun can commit gun violence. You or I could be the perp or victim.
We see things through different paradigms. Your motive is to protect gun ownership mine is to reduce gun violence. Thus we can never accept each other's arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:59 PM

21. Violence is perpetrated by people with violent intent. Guns are merely a sub-set.

Your motive is to protect gun ownership mine is to reduce gun violence.

I seek to decrease illegitimate uses of violence. Yes, you want to reduce gun violence but that is not the same as reducing violence overall. You have become fixated on guns.

I seek to allow people to defend themselves by the most effect means possible from illegitimate violence. For example, less than 5% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by an attacker with a gun. That means a person exercising their right to self-defense has a ~4% chance of being equally armed as their attacker but a better than 90% chance of being in a superior position.

Yes, I seek to defend -- and even promote -- that equation. Why anyone risk tipping the balance of power back to the rapists is beyond logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:06 PM

24. No I am not fixated on guns. I would say you are though.

I don't like our gun culture. At this point in time there isn't much I can do about.
I don't see the need to carry a gun.
The vast majority of people do not feel the need to carry a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:18 PM

26. "I would say you are though."

Yeah, I'm for defending gun rights and refuse to yield the debate to those who can bring nothing but name-calling, penis "jokes" and no workable solutions. Just like people who want marriage equality are fixated on gay rights. And people who are fixated on voting integrity are fixated on voting rights. Why can't we just move on?

I am sooo f-ing guilty on that score. And I refuse to apologize for promoting a culture where would-be victims of rapists, stalkers, violent homophobes and other derelicts hold an advantage over their tormentors.

I don't see the need to carry a gun.

Solipsism is when a person assumes their reality is the sum total of all reality. It tends to be a rather fragile framework for viewing matters. I hope you are never forcibly disabused of your error because it would be rather tragic considering the subject matter. I only wish you would be more charitable to those who aren't blessed with your privileged circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #26)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:27 PM

27. I think if you felt secure that guns will not be

confiscated then you would feel ok about working to reduce gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:35 PM

30. Except Washington DC and Chicago had to be dragged kicking and screaming

all the way to the USSC. Even now they employ every gimmick to keep their citizens unarmed in their crime-ridden hell holes. They harass and obfuscate. Elites are allowed to flout the law while common citizens are dragged through legal hell. They are being repeatedly dragged back into court.

Not to mention those who strive unceasingly to delegitimize Heller and MacDonald.

No. Our rights are not secure and we have to fight for them constantly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 19, 2014, 03:24 AM

42. "Gun violence results from gun ownership."

 

"Gun violence results from gun ownership."

No. Just no.

Gun owners, and the guns they own, are involved in gun violence at a rate of less than 1 percent.


Pretty funny, that you never bother to address that fact, while accusing others of obfuscation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 19, 2014, 04:06 AM

44. "it isn't career criminals only that shoot people."

So what is this by now.......your 584th wild swing and miss?

Not even the most rabid pro-restriction groups are pushing the "virgin killer" myth any more. The VAST majority of gun violence is conducted by those with extensive criminal backgrounds -- your obfuscation is registered and DISMISSED.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread