Keith Devens .com

So they're opposed to gun registration? What's wrong with that?

But were violent crimes prevented because somebody decided not to use an available gun, knowing it had been finger-printed?

What's wrong with gun registration? I'd say that A. it's intrusive control by the government over private property, but more importantly, B. a main intention of the second amendment is that an armed populace serves as the people's last defense of freedom from an oppressive government. Gun registration by the government subverts the whole premise, and is the first step in the loss of gun rights (and I would say, fundamental liberties). For example, a few years before the Holocaust really got rolling, the Nazis first step was to take away all Jews' guns. And IIRC, when they rolled into France, which had gun registration, they were easily able to prevent resistance by having a list of everyone who was armed.

But were violent crimes prevented because somebody decided not to use an available gun, knowing it had been finger-printed?

You can speculate if you'd like. But unless crime rates went down after the measure, you have nothing to back it up. It's certainly nothing upon which to base public policy.

Ah, the slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. Does anybody think a person with a gun has any chance against the government's bombs, tanks, airplanes, etc.?

Guns are dangerous weapons that are used to shoot things/animals/people. To own one, I don't see anything wrong with having to take a gun safety course or some sort of certification, pass a background check (no felons or people with mental disabilities could buy), and maybe even obtain a license where your personal info and guns are on record. A lot like getting a drivers license and cars (which aren't on the road to government confiscation either). That's reasonable - I don't have a problem with responsible, gun-knowledgable, law-abiding citizens owning guns. What disturbs me somewhat is the gang-banging-looking teenager who buys assault weapons and has no idea how to use them (true story - the kid showed up at a local shooting range I was at and unnerved everyone around with his lack of how to handle/use a gun).

The part you highlight as a "slippery slope" argument was only a small part of my reasoning in any case, though it's not actually a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument would be of the form "If they start registering guns, next they'll be rounding up our guns".

You have to be careful with fallacies. The reason things are fallacies is because they're an invalid form of what's usually a valid argument. Stephen's guide has a good page on the slippery slope argument. He helpfully describes the slippery slope argument as an invalid use of the "if, then" operator.

So, for that part of my argument above to be subject to that fallacy I would have to be arguing that rounding up of all guns is a necessary consequence to having gun registration. I'm merely arguing that it enables it, and that it's the first step along the way to that, which by itself makes it unacceptable. By being the "first step", I also mean to say that it's a shift in mindset that makes outlawing guns logically possible. Fundamentally, if the government has to give you permission for something, it transforms it from a right into a privilege, and legally under our constitution, as well as morally, owning these tools is our right. I think it makes as much sense to register handguns as it does to license people to have free speech (consider the "campaign finance law" that restricts political speech before an election -- a travesty), or practice their religion. Also, your car analogy is not analogous -- driving is considered a privilege.

Regarding your gang-banging teenager: those types seem to do just fine at obtaining guns, registered or not. Your example is disturbing, but it's an emotional and irrational response to it to argue for turning gun ownership from a right into a privilege.

Does anybody think a person with a gun has any chance against the government's bombs, tanks, airplanes, etc.?

One person, certainly not. An armed populace, certainly I do.

Yep, I think owning a gun should be a privilege then - felons and people with certain mental disabilities shouldn't be allowed to have them. Driving is a privilege. Getting a library card is a privilege. Getting a credit card is a privilege. Having a gun should be a privilege. That gang-banging wannabe was a danger to himself and those around him - he definitely needed to take a gun safety course, at least. Just like teenagers need to take a driving test to show they possess basic driving skills. There are such things as gun and shooting skills.

I really don't think citizens armed with guns has much chance all the government's armies, weapons, agencies, power, etc. Guns didn't do David Koresh or Randy Weaver any good in protecting them from the government. I've never felt the need to own a gun to protect myself from the government (though maybe for protection from criminals), and even if I did I sure wouldn't think it would do me much good except ensure that I got shot. And I don't think any anti-government groups would have much difficulty obtaining guns from the black market, overseas, etc.

Is that "enormous" a complimentary or strictly descriptive adjective? ;-)

Well, both! You have illustrations and everything... very informative I didn't know how truly useless ballistic fingerprinting laws are in practice, regardless of cost (in dollars or freedom).

Well, a picture is worth a thousand words they say. Since the piece ran nearly 5,000 words as it was, I figured the pictures would be very helpful!

For more info on NY's CoBIS program go to:
http://www.ocshooters.com/Reports/cobis/cobis.htm
This is the page that was used as "Appendix A" in the MD report.
george