Replies

Ok I'll try to tackle that question:

Without knowing the provisions of such a law, I'll make some asumptions:
1) all new firearms purchases would be registered
2) all owners would have to complete training
3) all existing weapons would have to be registered within a set time period after which they would be considered illegal weapons.

How would this affect violent crime:
In the immediate short term probably not much. The current glut of weapons would have to be reduced over time. It might reduce accidental deaths (training) and reduce the ease of access for felons more than is currently possible with background checks and the gun show loophole.

In the longer term the felony of possession of unregistered firearms would allow for more agressive pre-emptive action to be taken against suspected criminals.
Gun amnesties would allow for the collection and destruction of unregistered--illegal--weapons thus reducing the availablity
Reasonable limits might be placed on the number of guns that any single individual may purchase to limit gun-running and black market sales (Guns bought in the US and shipped overseas are a significant contributor to ethnic violence in places like Sierra Leone).

Frankly I equate the problem of guns to the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Right now states that seem stable could make an argument that they should be allowed to build nuclear weapons but the international community realizes that stability isn't permanent and mere availablity may lead to use.

A registration system could--in decades--reduce the availability of guns, and help to limit them to trained and law abiding citizens if coupled with aggressive enforcement and interdiction of smuggled weapons. (Which must be Hawaii's problem).

reduce the availability of guns, and help to limit them to trained and law abiding citizens if coupled with aggressive enforcement

That's what it always comes down to with liberals, isn't it? Agressively punish those you disagree with, even though they have committed no crime. Well, you should be happy to note that we already have that "aggressive enforcement", pal. Re-read the Senate's conclusions in post #231... and remember that it was written before Janet Reno barbecued 24 children over a $200 tax and before Lon Horiuchi assassinated a mother holding her infant because her husband may have had a gun that was 1/8 inch too short for some bureaucrat.

THAT is the "aggressive enforcement" we already have, and apparently it isn't even enough for you. Simply amazing! Just how far do you want them to go??

Post # 237. No more needs be said.

I wish people who advocate this nonsense would at least TRY to remember that 1. It has been tried before, to even GREATER extent, in Britain and Australia, and; 2. THEIR CRIME RATES ROSE DRASTICALLY!!!

Like most communists, however, they seem to think it will work, if only it is tried by the RIGHT people. Oh, and enforced more strictly.

"A registration system could--in decades--reduce the availability of guns, and help to limit them to trained and law abiding citizens if coupled with aggressive enforcement and interdiction of smuggled weapons."

Amazing, just like in friggin' Iraq! red China, N. Korea, Britain, France, Germany...and you want the US to be the same. Why is that I wonder. Well it's, because you're all about control. Every GD thing has be be controlled by a committee of self appointed experts, right down to the smallest detail. Regardless of the fact gunowners don't cause problems they pose a direct threat to your imposition of expert, authoritarian rule.

Slavery is dead. This isn't your friggin' spread and we're not your property, regardless of any vote that might be taken. Aggressive enforcement? You've got to be kidding. You must feel lucky!