Show me an instance where a gun registry led to the conviction of a murderer

12/12/2005 9:03:16 PM

It's not proof positive that said person used the handgun, but it is a way to track down a criminal.

And I know Abu-Jamal had a handgun registered to him and this was used as evidence in court, I'm sure there are several others.

12/12/2005 9:08:14 PM

he cant and wont and will probably leave the thread now

12/12/2005 9:08:14 PM

it's not too late to edit

12/12/2005 9:28:33 PM

he cant and wont and will probably leave the thread now

12/12/2005 9:29:48 PM

I thought the murder in Abu-Jamal's case was committed with a .44. I believe he had a .38 registered.

Now let me ask you something. If a criminal does not register his gun and commits a murder with it, who's door do they go knocking on?

12/12/2005 9:35:45 PM

so the only reason you opose gun registration is b/c the government may take away your gun?

doesnt this go along the lines of if you dont like it here you can giiiiiiit out.

12/12/2005 9:59:50 PM

No, that's not the only reason. I don't like gun registries because they do nothing good, like I said here:

Quote :

"Registration does absolutely nothing good."

They infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens while not preventing crime in any way at the expense of the taxpayer.

12/12/2005 10:12:02 PM

Quote :

"I thought the murder in Abu-Jamal's case was committed with a .44. I believe he had a .38 registered."

I don't really know to much about it other than he had a registered firearm and this was used as evidence. Probably a pretty shitty example to bring up due to the controversy surrounding it, but it's the only one I knew of specifically off the top of my head. I'm sure I can find some more if I google a bit, but I expect some cessation if I go to this trouble.

Quote :

"If a criminal does not register his gun and commits a murder with it, who's door do they go knocking on?"

Then it doesn't help in that specific case, but for every one of those that it doesn't, there are five that it does.

Let's say a criminal cleans off all this fingerprints, does this mean that we police shouldn't check for fingerprints ever since it didn't help in that specific case?

Quote :

"I don't like gun registries because they do nothing good"

So you don't think that these registries could be used to check the ownership of a handgun used in a murder? Why not?

Quote :

"They infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens while not preventing crime in any way at the expense of the taxpayer."

Could and aren't they used to track murderers and bring them to justice?

Oh no, they are just being used as a conspiracy to track you down and take their guns! You gun nuts are the most paranoid of all the crazy people groups.

12/13/2005 12:40:26 AM

Quote :

"I'm sure I can find some more if I google a bit, but I expect some cessation if I go to this trouble."

That's the point. There shouldn't be any trouble finding examples if it is an effective tool.

Quote :

"Then it doesn't help in that specific case, but for every one of those that it doesn't, there are five that it does."

Do you have numbers to back this up?

Quote :

"Let's say a criminal cleans off all this fingerprints, does this mean that we police shouldn't check for fingerprints ever since it didn't help in that specific case?"

That is a stupid analogy. Fingerprints give specific information. A handgun regsitry does not.

Quote :

"So you don't think that these registries could be used to check the ownership of a handgun used in a murder? Why not?"

How would it prove anything? A case cannot be built on the fact that someone owns a gun. There has to be other evidence.

Guns aren't usually left at the scene of a crime.

Quote :

"Could and aren't they used to track murderers and bring them to justice?"

Not that I am aware of. I asked you to find me some examples and you have yet to deliver.

Quote :

"Oh no, they are just being used as a conspiracy to track you down and take their guns! You gun nuts are the most paranoid of all the crazy people groups."

These were the same words spoken in Canada when the handgun registry was put in effect. Look where it got them. I wish i was just being paranoid, but it is hard for me to think otherwise when I see it happening.

12/13/2005 1:22:38 AM

Quote :

"There shouldn't be any trouble finding examples if it is an effective tool."

Really? Considering it's difficult enough to find information on criminal cases in canada on the internet and further considering this system has only recently been implemented it would be impossible to see the benefits from it, why did you even ask?

Quote :

"Do you have numbers to back this up?"

Isn't my hypothetical as good as yours?

Quote :

" Fingerprints give specific information. A handgun regsitry does not."

Name and address are pretty specific aren't they?

Quote :

"How would it prove anything?"

If they gun used was registered to you and it was used in a murder, that's fairly incriminating.

Quote :

"A case cannot be built on the fact that someone owns a gun. There has to be other evidence."

Obviously there has to be other evidence as well, but that isn't reason enough to discount it completely, it's still evidence. And couldn't you again say the same about fingerprints? Simply having one's fingerprints at the scene of the crime isn't evidence enough alone, but they are certainly a part.

Quote :

"Guns aren't usually left at the scene of a crime."

They are sometimes, additionally, do you have the numbers for that?

Quote :

"I asked you to find me some examples and you have yet to deliver."

The system HASNT BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET

HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES FROM SOMETHING THAT DOESNT YET EXIST?

Quote :

"These were the same words spoken in Canada when the handgun registry was put in effect."

God forbid they might be true, no, it's all part of a conspiracy!

Quote :

"I wish i was just being paranoid, but it is hard for me to think otherwise when I see it happening."

I'm sure believers in aliens and the apocalypse say the same thing.

12/13/2005 2:04:31 AM

He is not being paranoid

First of all, lets use NC as an example, you have to apply and obtain a handgun permit to buy a pistol, about a week process. Then you have to turn that permit into the dealer to buy a handgun and they keep it in their records. If a crime is committed the government can then trace the serial number back to who bought it. Even without registry the government can easily find out who bought what gun. Registry is moot.

All registry does is give the government direct knowledge of who owns what and makes it easier for them to take law abiding citizens guns away.

12/13/2005 3:03:22 AM

after all of this i realized im never going to own a gun so i dont need to worry about this shit

12/13/2005 10:01:16 AM

Quote :

"If a crime is committed the government can then trace the serial number back to who bought it."

At least you admit how this is useful, something he still denys.

Quote :

"Even without registry the government can easily find out who bought what gun. Registry is moot."

There have been problems with gun show guns, and people buying guns for others, etc. They need a completely direct route to trace the person who owns it.

12/13/2005 10:41:20 AM

we have a 2nd amendment for a reason

go cry to the UN, commie

12/13/2005 12:09:24 PM

a gun registry doesn't impede on your second amendment rights

12/13/2005 12:40:18 PM

Quote :

"Really? Considering it's difficult enough to find information on criminal cases in canada on the internet"

New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, Cleveland, Boston, California, and Durham have registeries.

Quote :

"and further considering this system has only recently been implemented"

The registery was started 60 years ago.

Quote :

"Isn't my hypothetical as good as yours?"

No, because you are pulling numbers out of thin air so far as I can tell. I have not found an instance where a gun registery has helped solved a crime, therefore I can conclude that a gun registery has not helped solve a crime.

Quote :

"Name and address are pretty specific aren't they?"

The registery doesn't include who pulled the trigger. Just like you said, it's not proof positive that said person used the handgun.

Quote :

"Obviously there has to be other evidence as well, but that isn't reason enough to discount it completely, it's still evidence."

If you can prove that the person used the gun, then you don't need to prove that he owned the gun. If you can't prove he used the gun, then proving he owned the gun won't be enough for a conviction. The evidence provided by a registry supplements a losing case and does nothing for a winning one. Therefore, the evidence provided is frivolous at best.

Quote :

"And couldn't you again say the same about fingerprints? Simply having one's fingerprints at the scene of the crime isn't evidence enough alone, but they are certainly a part."

But fingerprints prove that the person was at the scene of the crime. A registry does not. The only thing a registry shows is the fact that someone owns a gun. It doesn't even show if the gun a person owns and the one in a crime are the same.

Quote :

"God forbid they might be true, no, it's all part of a conspiracy!"

I never said anything about a conspiracy.

Quote :

"I'm sure believers in aliens and the apocalypse say the same thing."

Now you are just being silly.

Quote :

"At least you admit how this is useful, something he still denys."

NC requires the records of purchases to be destroyed after 10 years. Furthermore, NC does not use the records to find criminals who legally purchased guns previously.

Can you find a case in NC where this has led to a conviction?

Quote :

"There have been problems with gun show guns, and people buying guns for others, etc."

What problems with gun shows?

People buying guns for others is already illegal. A registry will not fix this.

12/13/2005 10:26:59 PM

Quote :

"New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, Cleveland, Boston, California, and Durham have registeries."

And how useful would those prove to be if the registry isn't federal? People go across state lines to buy lotto tickets, you think they wouldn't to buy a gun?

Quote :

"The registery was started 60 years ago."

It's only being implemented RIGHT NOW.

Quote :

"No, because you are pulling numbers out of thin air so far as I can tell."

And so are you, I made a hypothetical up and so did you.

Quote :

"I have not found an instance where a gun registery has helped solved a crime"

Of course you can't, a federal gun registry hasn't been implemented yet.

Quote :

"The registery doesn't include who pulled the trigger."

It can, but in the cases it doesn't it includes someone connected to the person who pulled the trigger.

Quote :

"ust like you said, it's not proof positive that said person used the handgun."

And just like I said before, neither is fingerprints, but they are still proof.

Quote :

"If you can prove that the person used the gun, then you don't need to prove that he owned the gun."

Ownership helps to prove that the person used the gun.

Quote :

"If you can't prove he used the gun, then proving he owned the gun won't be enough for a conviction."

But it is an integral piece of evidence nonetheless. You are attempting to discount it as any sort of evidence when it is still a valueble piece of evidence.

Quote :

"But fingerprints prove that the person was at the scene of the crime."

And the registry shows that a person owns the gun. If the person in question was put at the scene of the crime AND the gun that was used was registered to him, that would be a good bit more incriminating than simply placing the person at the scene of the crime.

Quote :

"Can you find a case in NC where this has led to a conviction?"

No, but why does it matter? We are talking about a federal gun registry.

Quote :

"A registry will not fix this."

But it does help us quickly hold people responsible who break this law.

12/13/2005 11:30:41 PM

Quote :

"They need a completely direct route to trace the person who owns it."

I like how you ignored this part

Quote :

"All registry does is give the government direct knowledge of who owns what and makes it easier for them to take law abiding citizens guns away."

Quote :

"people buying guns for others"

That is a crime. In fact, they give you a whole pamphlet warning you about the consequences if you do that.

Quote :

"There have been problems with gun show guns"

The quote below taken from your friends at the Brady campaign.

Quote :

"The state requires a criminal background check be done prior to the purchase of handguns at gun shows"

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=nc#gunshows

12/14/2005 12:16:21 AM

Quote :

"I like how you ignored this part"

I ignored it because it's paranoid bullshit. The government has other much less conspiratical reasons to keep track of gun owners, namely that 100% of gun crime involes guns.

Quote :

"That is a crime. In fact, they give you a whole pamphlet warning you about the consequences if you do that."

So is burning a copy of one of your cd's for a friend, I hear stuff about it all the time.

Quote :

"The quote below taken from your friends at the Brady campaign."

So was this one

Quote :

"But no background check is required for anyone buying a long gun at a gun show if it is sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Long guns, including assault weapons like the AK47, can be sold at gun shows on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want. No records are required to be kept on such sales either, making it almost impossible for police to trace the weapons if they are used in a crime."

12/14/2005 12:33:02 AM

Quote :

"So is burning a copy of one of your cd's for a friend, I hear stuff about it all the time."

Because copying music is really comparable to the severity of the crime and the possible punishment of illegally obtaining a handgun for someone. Plus, if a crime is committed with that gun, through some investigation, the police can find out who bought the gun and then question them as to whom they sold it too.

Quote :

"I ignored it because it's paranoid bullshit."

Quote :

" In 1934, Germany required all guns to be registered. When Hitler came into power, the registry was used to confiscate the weapons. In 1967, New York City required long guns to be registered. When some of the guns were later deemed illegal, the registry was used to confiscate the weapons. California required assault weapons to be registered. It is now illegal to own an assault weapon in California. Brazil started a registery in the 80s. Recently, they have tried to ban guns. Australia started a registery. Now they have banned many guns. Canada created a gun registery. Now banning handguns is being proposed. Are you seeing a pattern?"

Quote :

"So was this one"

I ignored that because it is ridicules. It would be pretty easy to spot someone carrying an AK-47 down the street. If they then catch the person that has it they not only have the person that committed the crime with the weapon, but they can also question them as to where they got it.

Now even though I don’t think it’s necessary, I’ll go with you on instant background checks on long guns. I will not agree on registry.

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 1:02 AM. Reason : ]

12/14/2005 1:01:32 AM

Quote :

"And how useful would those prove to be if the registry isn't federal? People go across state lines to buy lotto tickets, you think they wouldn't to buy a gun?"

Uh... If you live there, your guns must be registered there. It doesn't matter where you bought the gun.

Quote :

"It's only being implemented RIGHT NOW."

The Canadian registry? It's been around for quite a while. I do not know of any plans for an American one.

Quote :

"And so are you, I made a hypothetical up and so did you."

I didn't make up a hypothetical. I used deductive reasoning.

Quote :

"Of course you can't, a federal gun registry hasn't been implemented yet."

What makes a federal registry any more valid than a state or city one?

Quote :

"Ownership helps to prove that the person used the gun."

No it doesn't.

Watch this amazingly sly circumvention of a registry
Detective: "You owned the gun that was used in a murder."
Owner: "Someone stole it."
Voila! Ownership is not proved.

Quote :

"But it is an integral piece of evidence nonetheless. You are attempting to discount it as any sort of evidence when it is still a valueble piece of evidence."

It is not a valuable piece of evidence when it holds no value. You can't convict someone on ownership. You would have to prove that the person was in possession of the weapon at the time of the murder. Ownership does not prove possession. If you can prove possession, ownership is irrelevant.

Quote :

"And the registry shows that a person owns the gun. If the person in question was put at the scene of the crime AND the gun that was used was registered to him, that would be a good bit more incriminating than simply placing the person at the scene of the crime."

For a conviction, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Ownership is not byond reasonable doubt. "A good bit more" is not beyond reasonable doubt. You need to put together a solid case. If you can prove that MURDERER killed VICTIM, then what good is proving ownership?

Quote :

"But it does help us quickly hold people responsible who break this law."

How?

Now, a gun registry relies on several things to be effective.

The gun must be registered. If a person does not register his gun, then the gun is not in the registry. If the gun is not in the registry, then any crime committed with it will not lead to the owner.

The gun must be found. If there is no gun, then the entry in the registry will not be looked at, and any crime committed with it will not lead to the owner.

The gun must have been in the owner's possession at the time of the murder. If someone else had access to it, then ownership does not matter. If you want to argue that someone close to the owner can be linked to the crime, then you could also argue that someone close to the victim can also be linked to the crime. Wouldn't it be more logical to follow direct leads?

The registry has to actually be used, and must therefore be useful. The registry must be made available to all law enforcement agencies and be accessible at all times. It must be easy to use enough so that anyone can use it without trouble (a searchable database). It must contain every weapon that is registered and be continually updated, adding entries for new purchases, deleting entries for guns that no longer exist, and updating entries for guns that change possession. That is a huge undertaking. And all of this becomes useless if the registry is not used.

And now I ask you this: Why would criminals register their guns? If they go through the trouble of filing off serial numbers to avoid incrimination, why would they register their guns to incriminate themselves?

Quote :

"But no background check is required for anyone buying a long gun at a gun show if it is sold by "private" individuals or gun "collectors." Long guns, including assault weapons like the AK47, can be sold at gun shows on a "no questions asked, cash-and-carry" basis, making it easy for criminals and even juveniles to buy as many guns as they want. No records are required to be kept on such sales either, making it almost impossible for police to trace the weapons if they are used in a crime."

If I want to make a private sale, then what business is it of the government's?

Assault weapons make up a small portion of gun crime. Legal assault weapons are pretty pricey and not easily concealable, things a criminal does not look for.

I haven't seen that many private sellers at gun shows. If you sell guns for profit, you are required to get an FFL.

Why are "private" and "individual" in quotations?

What are you implying with this?

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 1:26 AM. Reason : ]

12/14/2005 1:10:11 AM

Quote :

"Why are "private" and "individualcollectors" in quotations? What are you implying with this?"

He is not implying anything, the Brady campaign is.
We all know they are the bastion of impartialness and truth.

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 1:37 AM. Reason : ]

12/14/2005 1:36:34 AM

I'm asking what he was implying by posting it. The private and collector question was more of a rhetorical one, I suppose, and not directed towards him.

12/14/2005 1:40:19 AM