fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2759 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2759 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 033 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Actually, not all guns require registration.

And I would firmly disagree with that. I don't think you should be allowed to have the power to kill or maim people and no one has to know. (And yes, you can kill people with a lot of things, but guns do it easier and more often)

"Easier" depends on the person. Knives are more accessible.

But take more effort unless you have a lucky shot or know where you're aiming.

...not really?

In my concealed carry class, the instructor told a story about a perp who ended up shot fifteen times by the police. He walked to the ambulance. Knives are way messier, make bigger holes, and bleed more.

I think it's got to be a case by case basis? But knives are used for more things whereas guns only purpose is to shoot or look cool. It would be impractical to have to register knives, as well, because every single person owns at least one so it would just be a census.

Considering the gun culture where I live, registering guns would be hugely impractical as well. Good luck enforcing it unless you're going to do a house-to-house search, with dogs to find hidden compartments. Plenty of us will not comply because of justifiable paranoia that registration = confiscation down the road.

I don't agree with banning guns at all. I LIKE guns. But I still think you should register. Could it be used for harm? Yes, but so could a lot of things.

Why? What will that do, on a practical level, besides create a database of law-abiding citizens who own guns? Criminals certainly won't comply.

No they won't, I guess we should get rid of all laws because criminals aren't going to listen to them either?

I'm still left with wondering what you think your database will actually accomplish that's a positive good? Especially in the hands of a government I don't trust to wipe its own ass with a flashlight, a beach towel, and detailed instructions.

Problems with the government are valid, but completely ordinary exemplary citizens snap all the time. A lot of gun deaths are caused by guns that ARE registered. Which means having more information on who owns the gun and things like that.

And the ones who "snap" generally get caught, and not because they're in a gun registration database someplace. I don't think my privacy should be subsumed by the faint hope that they might maybe be able to use their intrusive database to catch some vague person sometime.

You don't see how it would at all help to have a registry of who owns what when there is in unexplained gunshot around? Sure, not everyone will be in there but most people will.

I don't really see how 'John Smith owns a hunting rifle' is a major invasion of privacy, any more than 'John Smith owns a sedan' and 'John Smith lives on Privet Drive.

Not unless you've got an up-to-date database of bullets to go with it.

The problem with gun registration is that it leads to confiscation just about every time it's tried. A SWAT team isn't going to come to my house and confiscate my PT Cruiser. My guns are a different story.

Ok, fair point. But I can be pro-registration and anti-confiscation. Which I am.

I literally don't care. Private citizens do not need a gun, let alone guns, and you couldn't pay me enough to live in your area. I value my safety.

/adds to my "people in some parts of America are batshit" theory.

Also, I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation where we spy on everyone with guns. I'm talking about a situation where there name is on a list and the list just says 'owns this.' and no one cares about the list unless a crime occurs.

Obv, the government is flawed and that might not work out perfectly, but that doesn't mean the idea itself is a bad one.

The idea itself is a bad one because people like the Brady Bunch and a whole bunch of people in Congress who barely know which end of the tube the round exits from want to take them away. You don't see how a database like that could be abused?

Not to mention the costs involved in maintaining it and the giant bureaucracy that would no doubt go along with it, because this is the government we're talking about.

Also, where is the Constitutional authority for a federal database like that?

Of course it could be abused! Anything can be abused! But that doesn't mean that the basic core idea isn't a good one.

I can't speak out about how it would work, or the Constitutional authority, I am not educated in those areas.

Criminals don't comply with any laws. That's why they're criminals.

Criminals often drive without licenses as well; should we just let everyone drive without licenses then?

[ SECRET POST #2759 ]

DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA