ObamaLover4Life wrote:I think all guns should be registered, that way, the government knows who has them, and if a crime is committed, they can track the culprit down. I also think that the waiting period should be a federally mandated 30 days, plus you should have to pass a safety test each time.
There is no hunting use for anything with more than 10 rounds, so people shouldn't be able to buy assault clips, and also, they should close the gun show loophole. There are far too many felons who buy their guns illegally on the internet, or at gun shows. If you want a gun, do what I did, and register it, get the background checks, and obey the laws. That is the only safe way to own guns
No jurisdiction that requires registration has ever used that information to secure a criminal conviction for a violent crime. Registries have one and only one purpose: to allow the government to know who has what so that when possession becomes restricted, they know right where to go to get them. Also, you've been watching far too much TV if you actually believe that collecting fired casings can actually be used to trace a gun. Making a match, even when you are only comparing two specific known samples, and when no one has made any attempt to alter the markings the gun makes (which is extremely easy), is hit and miss at best. Being able to find a match from an entire collection in some government archive is simply science fiction.
What is the point of a waiting period, especially on anything past the first purchase? If I already own a gun and am so mad at someone that I would want to shoot them, why would I go buy another gun to do it? What if someone needs a gun for self-defense now, not in 30 days? Like a woman who is dealing with a stalker (who are often not taken seriously by the authorities), or a small business owner who is at serious risk of being robbed? What do they do while they wait this ridiculous 30 days?
Last time I checked, most people don't own guns for hunting. And what the heck is an "assault clip"? If a police officer, with body armor, a radio, backup, air support, etc. needs a 15-round magazine, or a patrol rifle with a 30-round magazine, to defend himself against a criminal who isn't specifically targeting him, how come we, lacking all that extra protection and support, don't need anything more than 10 rounds to defend ourselves against the
exact same criminal who actually
is targeting us (which is how he becomes a criminal?
As well as watching (and apparently believing) far too much TV, you apparently also listen far too much to Bloomberg. According to the annual statistics on crime guns compiled by the US DOJ, guns purchased at gun shows make up only 0.6-0.8% (yes, less than 1%) of crime guns every year since they've been tracking that statistic. The single most common source of crime guns is sales through federally licensed dealers at brick-and-mortar gun shops. The gun-show loophole is a myth. The primary way criminals get guns (even more often than stealing/ buying stolen guns) is to simply have a friend or family member buy the gun for them through an FFL. All that buyer then has to do is claim the gun was stolen and suddenly background checks, registration, safety tests, and all that other BS ceases to do any good. And unless the criminal rolls on his family, it's not even a prosecutable crime. So we already have ample data showing that background checks don't work.
Given that no jurisdiction with all these silly laws is any safer, on average, than those that don't, the statement that "this is the only safe way to own guns" is contradicted by all real-world evidence.