Do you favor gun registration?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	25 (69%)
	No
	11 (31%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[HERVEPA]

1. And do I favor banning handguns?

Yes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. That's a bridge too far for me at the federal level but I strongly favor gun registration./NT

[BainsBane]

6. It's also unconstitutional

at least how SCOTUS currently interprets the 2nd Amendment, and that is the reigning law of the land.

[BainsBane]

2. Registration, licensing and training

and of course background checks.

[PM Martin]

12. +1,000,000,000

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. Add in liability insurance -

and I am 100% onboard with your agenda.

[rurallib]

27. glad you added the insurance

I would also add in some form of engineering the gun so that only one person can use it (fingerprint or eye scan).

Back in my working days at the factory we were always told better to engineer safety in than depend on people to remember a lot of procedures.

[daleanime]

51. +1

[JoePhilly]

28. Yup ... Qualify, and you can have any gun you want.

But you have to demonstrated proficiency.

[HereSince1628]

4. Not really, it might help some after-the-fact investigations

I don't see it anything that could be recorded as a very effective preventative measure in homicide or suicide.

[BainsBane]

9. There was a study of CT's law requiring registration and training

and it dramatically cut gun deaths. The story was posted on DU just a couple of days ago.

[Shamash]

55. Yes, and the story was pretty soundly debunked on any number of grounds

The most obvious of which is that the interval chosen for the study just coincidentally matched the premise. Shift the interval or change it, and you could draw the exact opposite conclusion from the exact same data (go look at the graphs in the study and see for yourself).

Another point is that cities like Hartford were simultaneously doing anti-crime measures that had nothing to do with registration and training, yet cut the number of firearm murders in the city by a staggering amount in a single year. Yet improvements like this were not factored in at all in the study you mention, and thus the resulting decline from these non-registration efforts is instead credited to the premise of the study.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. In an ideal universe, certainly. In the actual political environment of American electoral reality--

in which coming out in favor of such things is an express train to our candidates losing elections, I'll have to pass: there is not much point in "favoring" something which will not happen and which will only cause election defeats.

[Mojorabbit]

40. Well said and pretty much how I see it. nt

[KamaAina]

7. Do you favor car registration?

Yes. It works. In some circumstances, a car can also be a deadly weapon. And so help me, I haven't heard any drivers screeching that "Obama's trying to take away our cars!" And it makes it easy to determine who has title to the deadly weapon in question.

[mwooldri]

11. you beat me to it...

plus it can be argued that guns kill more people than cars now. I'll even go so far to say that I believe that in the last 12 months law enforcement officers have been involved with the death of more people at the point of a gun than by the use of their motor vehicles.

[Duckhunter935]

13. Cars do not need to be registered

To own.

[okasha]

18. Every car has a Vehicle Identification Number

that can be used to track its history.

[hack89]

23. And every gun has a serial number. Nt

[okasha]

26. Of course.

Vehicles are registered when you get your plates or tags. No reason guns shouldn't be also.

[Duckhunter935]

33. You do not need plates or tags

To own a car. Only to use it on public roads.

[mwooldri]

31. It's not easy to buy an unregistered car.

You can get a car used and not have it registered to you. The seller simply signs the title over to you (with or without a notary) and you don't hand the paperwork into the DMV to get it registered to you. However, that car has been registered.

Want to buy new? I'm sure the dealership would have registered the car with the State and I'm certain that they're obliged to fill out all kinds of paperwork even if you buy from the dealer only to put the vehicle on a truck when sold. Even if it is to send the information back to the manufacturer to say that John Smith has purchased a vehicle with VIN # - here's their details in case of a vehicle recall.

Bottom line is that the government have a better trace on your car than it does your gun.

[Duckhunter935]

34. All guns are sold initially

Through an FFL and have a registered owner, the same as your car analogy.

[yallerdawg]

8. It'd help if gun ownership was...

well-regulated and gun owners had to join some kind of organized group like a state militia.

Where would I get a crazy idea like that?

[freshwest]

17. WA state has them under the control of the Governor, not the LP, TP, 2ASs, KKK, etc.

Although some of them may be in such organizations. It's a purple state. I know where you're possibly trying to head the conversation, to the USC, but that is a more recent ruling than the 2A likely considered.

[mwooldri]

10. Do you favor car registration?

Cars aren't designed to kill yet we're required to register them.

If you believe publications like The Economist, you're more likely to die by gunshot than by car accident.

By that token, yes... register the guns. I also have a few thoughts about the 2nd but we'll just keep to the gun registration topic for now.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets

[beevul]

14. Negative.

Cars aren't designed to kill yet we're required to register them.

To use in public, not to own.

Unless you mean that "registration" is for concealed carry in public, which I doubt.

Theres also the matter of the 5th amendment:

A prohibited person can not be forced by the state or Federal government to register.


Self-incrimination.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Many states require gun registration...

Your argument is akin to suggesting that Nevada can't issue gaming licenses because a felon would have to incriminate himself to apply.

[beevul]

21. Its not my argument...

Its not my argument, its a binding USSC decision:


Haynes v. United States

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).

Background of the case

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[corkhead]

16. yes and I would also require liability insurance

ignore my sigline in this case.

[hack89]

24. That would make the NRA a ton of money

They would do an AARP and go into the insurance business.

[corkhead]

30. and I suppose you don't buy gasoline because Exxon profits from it

what you said may be true but that is not a rationalization for not having it.

[hack89]

43. A richer, bigger, more powerful NRA is not good for gun control

how long do you think that insurance requirement would remain if every gun owner had an incentive to join the NRA? We hear constantly how the NRA is too powerful - what are the long term prospects for gun control in America if the NRA is ten time bigger than it is right now?

[corkhead]

46. your premise is based on unfounded speculation

and you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I am not for a stronger NRA either but I don't see how the possibility that the NRA *might* get into the insurance business is enough of a reason to abandon the idea of having gun owners purchase insurance to protect society from the possible consequences of that ownership.

I don't agree with your logic on this point and I will leave it at that.

[X_Digger]

32. It wouldn't have paid in this case-- insurance doesn't cover criminal acts.

Not to mention, it would be ridiculously cheap (350+ Million guns, 99.95% of which are not used in any crime or accident.)

If you just intend it as a way to discourage ownership (by making it artificially higher than actuarial risk would dictate), you'll have to take it up with the USSC.

[corkhead]

35. Like a doctor's malpractice insurance, its not to protect the doctor

but to to provide compensation for the doctor's behavior / incompetence. An insurance company cannot choose to not pay a claim to a victim because of a doctor's negligence. They have to pay the claim and then they may choose to raise the doctor's rates or cancel the policy.

[X_Digger]

39. A deliberate criminal act is not negligence.

You can't insure a criminal act.

That's why a drug dealer can't take out an insurance policy on his street corner operation and collect damages when the guy from the next street corner decides on a hostile takeover.

[corkhead]

41. we're not talking about the gun owner collecting here

the gun owner pays for insurance to cover the potential harm their gun ownership might cause.

It is also like auto insurance. Any person can buy car insurance but if that insurance purchaser turns out to be a criminally drunk driver that kills a pedestrian, a claim is still paid to the victim's family and it doesn't protect the drunk driver from additional liability.

[X_Digger]

42. Nor could a drug dealer's business policy cover innocent bystanders to the 'hostile takeover'.

Seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_insurance

In other words, liability insurance does not protect against liability resulting from crimes or intentional torts committed by the insured. This is intended to prevent criminals, particularly organized crime, from obtaining liability insurance to cover the costs of defending themselves in criminal actions brought by the state or civil actions brought by their victims. A contrary rule would encourage the commission of crime, and allow insurance companies to indirectly profit from it, by allowing criminals to insure themselves from adverse consequences of their own actions.

[corkhead]

45. I am not talking about having a gun owner insure themselves from adverse consquences of their action

but to pay for the coverage of the community at large from such actions. The insurance provider would have to assess the risks and price the policy accordingly. That may be a different type of insurance than what exists, I don't know, I am no insurance expert but that is what I believe is needed. I say all of this as a gun owner by the way.

[X_Digger]

49. Yes, that's called imaginary insurance. n/t

[corkhead]

54. If it doesn't exist, then it needs to be created in my opinion.

[Lurker Deluxe]

56. What would it pay out?

If you ... like really you ... owned this "insurance" company and one of your clients committed a horrific act like this latest shooting, what do you think the payout would be?

$100,000,000.00 per life?

200?

What is that life worth, in dollar value, that some insurance company is going to cover? More for younger people, less for disabled?

Give me the breakdown on how this "insurance" would work.

And, if it needs to be created, create it.

[corkhead]

57. Why don't you just come out and state your real agenda instead of badgering me

actually, you don't need to, it's quite obvious.

Good day!

[Lurker Deluxe]

58. Why don't you ...

Obviously you want to make it impossible for anyone except the rich and well connected to own a firearm.

You will simply add "insurance" and make it prohibitively expensive (artificially) to achieve this goal.

[corkhead]

59. and I suppose you think free guns should be given out to those who cannot afford to purchase them.

Insurance should be part of the cost of ownership. It should be super cheap because nothing bad ever happens with a gun anyway.

[X_Digger]

61. And if it's created (*snort* let's run with this illogical line) and the cost is $5 per year.

What then? If that's all the premium required, would you be satisfied? Or would you like to jack up the price by fiat until the cost is above most people?

(He asks, knowing the answer..)

[corkhead]

64. The only illogical thing I see here is how you are able to leap to crazy conclusions about my views

can I have some of what you're snorting?

[Lurker Deluxe]

50. Because it was an accident

The criminal charges ensue because a law was broken, but the death was still accidental. The driver will rarely be charged with first degree murder in an incident where he is charged with intoxication because of the loss of faculty, it would have to involve some form of direct action ... running from the police to evade the stop, for example. Even then the charge is more often than not, DUI Manslaughter, which means there was no intention to commit a crime.

You think some auto insurance company paid for the destruction of the fed building in OKC?

Insurance will not pay for deliberate acts which cause the destruction of property or damage to persons.

Take your car and drive it (sober) through the local park, do some donuts, run down some park benches, knock over some artwork, and make a mess of the place. When the cops get there, just hand them your insurance card. Don't be surprised when you get a bill for the cost of repair ... your insurance company is not going to pay.

[Doc_Technical]

20. I support gun registration

for all semi-automatic firearms.

[hack89]

22. I stand with the ACLU on this. Nt

[Snobblevitch]

25. Somwbody once told me that

it is against the law to create a federal database that would be required to register all guns in private ownership.

[hrmjustin]

29. Yes.

[Half-Century Man]

36. Any firearm with a detachable magazine should be federally registered.

Owners of same require same.

The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't say a single word about firearms. It protects the ownership of arms, weapons in general; but not specifically firearms.
American citizens can and do own fully functional Tanks, Fighter planes, bomber planes, 40mm Bofors guns, belt fed heavy machine guns, mini guns, submachine guns sawed off rifles and shotguns, silencers, maces, lances, swords, tomahawks, crossbows, and 105mm howitzers; all of which are regulated, some very heavily. Transportation, storage, public display, and federal registration are all part of the controls placed on these arms.

Why are high capacity easily reloadable light weight hand held weapons with an effective range of several hundred to a thousand meters not included in the commonly accepted packet of laws around every other arm?
The argument that the second amendment forbears all forms of regulations of firearms is a distortion of the actual text. Firearms are just a part of "arms". If there is little objection to regulation of other arms, then objections of regulation of firearms loses creditability,

[hack89]

44. The 2A allows for the strict regulation of guns

no one has ever said anything different - even Scalia in the Heller decision says that.

The obstacles to the gun control you desire are not legal ones - it is simply that there is not widespread public support for it. It is as simple as that - if Americans really wanted strict gun control they could have it.

[Iggo]

37. Of course.

[PowerToThePeople]

38. Ban all guns! n/t

[Vinca]

47. Registration at the very least.

And the registration can't be obtained without a thorough background check and basic weapon's training.

[One_Life_To_Give]

48. What are the unintended consequences?

Does Scalia become the Liberal on the Supreme Court? Is Social Security Privatized?

Millions will wonder why the government wants to know if they have one Springfield or perhaps a Marlin as well. The backlash which follows over identifying if a Rancher has not only a Winchester but a Shotgun could set progressive legislation back a generation.

IMO A Identification Card, renewed every five years would achieve much of the desired goal without the same degree of Political Cost.

[LonePirate]

52. I want nothing short of a full repeal of the Second Amendment and confiscation of all guns

Learn to use a bow if you want to hunt. Carry a taser if you feel you need to protect yourself.

[X_Digger]

63. Free clue: The bill of rights *grants* no rights, therefore repealing them revokes none.

Our government and courts are based on the principles of the enlightenment philosophy that rights are inherent in the people, not granted by the government.

The right to travel is a well-established right, but it appears nowhere in the bill of rights or the constitution.

The framers of the bill of rights considered not even writing them down, for fear that future generations might argue that our rights are only those explicitly spelled out, regardless of the 9th/10th amendment. (Boy, they nailed that one, eh?)

The right to keep and bear arms would go from being an explicitly protected, enumerated right, to an unenumerated right, implicitly protected by the ninth amendment. And it would remain explicitly protected by various state constitutions.

[TheKentuckian]

53. No, but perhaps the owner should be licensed to ensure competence.

[Sunlei]

60. mexico has said, 80% of the guns they recover came from the USA. I also favor turning over

any straw sellers to the Mexican gov.

[Recursion]

62. I think licensure is more important

But I'm also for registration.