Political Crossfire Forums

The NRA fight adamantly against a national gun registry because they believe it's an infringement of privacy. They seem to be successful in blocking any attempt at passing such a law. We can have a voluntary registry, but it's tough to get people to go sign up if there's no benefit in them doing so.

But what if we create a national "not it" registry to indicate that you no longer own the gun? That way it's not up to you to register, but up to the previous owner to deregister. A gun manufacture can say that these batch of guns have been sold to this dealer thereby relieving themselves of questioning if the guns were used in a crime. This is voluntary, but if there's no record of a transfer, then they're the first line of questioning if the guns are used in a crime. When the dealer sells a gun, he can also register and say who owns the guns now. He can say "f**k you, I'm not going to register anyone," and that's fine. Except that if a gun is used and he's the last owner then the police can come and question him. The same line of logic applies to personal transfers.

This would essentially help create a national registry, except the effort would be shifted to the people who would benefit from taking action rather than the new gun owner.

new zealand and canada scrapped their long gun registry as being a completely useless waste of money. it did absolutely nothing but cost a large fortune. it actually became a hackers shopping list for guns. there were hundreds of breaches and over 340 are still unsolved.

a list of serial numbers cannot solve or prevent crime. it's stupid to think it can.

canada still has a handgun registry. it has been in place since the 1930s. but most crimes are committed with handguns. so it's also useless.

lists do nothing.

Google sheets