Insurance is not the same as a registry.

As far as I remember, one justification of a gun registry was so cops knew who had guns and who didn't. I was arguing that point.

>If some people drive without insurance, should we abandon the idea of mandatory auto insurance? Of course I don't know what's what in the U.S., but here it's mandatory. We have lots of things that are laws that some people ignore. We don't drop rules just because some people ignore the rules. Instead we should be trying to find ways to make it more reliable, not just throwing up our arms and saying, "it's not 100% so let's drop it."
>
>>>>>>Regretbly, you can only track the weapons of law abiding citizens. So, tracking doesn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>>Once again: every criminal was once a law abiding citizen.
>>>>
>>>>Then let's reword his statement: You can only track the weapons of people who probably won't use them in a sinister way.
>>>>
>>>>If I buy a gun because I want street cred and might shoot someone in a rival gang, I am not going to register it. How does a gun registry help there?
>>>
>>>It doesn't, of course, but with respect to the guy who buys a gun never thinking of committing a crime and then gets into it with his wife, and gets crazy, the police have a chance of knowing if there is a gun in the residence when the are called. I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a good way to go. If the registry doesn't work in every possible case, it should be scrapped? No.
>>
>>If you can't rely on it, why even have it?
>>
>>I might have registered a gun that I sold and the purchaser did not register it. To their records, I still own it. Caution required.
>>
>>I might be the purchaser. To their records, I still own it. No caution required.
>>
>>To be safe, caution should be required in all cases. What use is a gun registry then?
>>
>>>>>>>Well, I'm all for tracking guns for the purpose of knowing tracking them to criminals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The problem is that some would argue that it violates the 2nd amendment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And, crimanals are surely not going to register their guns, so all you've done is put another
>>>>>>>hinderence on a law-abiding citizen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We have a national registry in Canada - It doesn't work. It's just a big waste of tax money. All it did was make every gun own a criminal in the eyes of the law. The government has since abandoned registry of long guns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think there should be a national registry AND a national firearms license.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Right now in the US a 16 year old kid can get a driver's permit and get behind the wheel of a
>>>>>>>>>dangerous vehicle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A potential gun owner should be required to attend training before being awarded a license.
>>>>>>>>>Then each time he/she buys a gun, it's entered into the database.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Not only is the person tracked, but trained. This would reduce the accidental deaths by guns and
>>>>>>>>>help track firearms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tracy,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Interesting links....and really supporting what is common sense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>By the way, does anyone recall the Islamic looting that took place in Europe right after the 9/11 attacks? Makes you wonder if all those guys would have done so, had they known that their victims would have been able to defend themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm open to discussion on specifics of making sure that background checks for gun owners are as full-proof as possible. But the notions being promoted by some here are just way off base.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Kevin