The registry for restricted guns (that includes all pistols, short-barreled shotguns, and AR-15 variants), will still stay ,along with the licensing program which is required for anyone that wishes to acquire firearms, but yes, you are correct, that once the LGR is gone, a LICENSED gun owner can walk in to a shop, buy a non-restricted rifle/shotgun, take it home, and the government will not have a record of this sale to this particular owner. I suppose the only way to find out would be through the shop's record book (some shops use these, some don't).
If one day the registry for restricted firearms is gone as well, then (again), a LICENSED gun owner will be able to own pistols without the government knowing what he/she has in his/her possession.
I'm just going to take a guess that you are implying, that, once the LGR (or one day, the restricted registry, which has been in place since the 30s') is gone, there will be increased crime committed by legal gun owners? I'd like to know what the logic is behind your assumption - that legal gun owners are dangerous people, even MORE SO than actual criminals, to commit crimes, even after going through a strict licensing program to acquire their license which takes anywhere from 2~6 months? You, or anyone else that doesn't have a license, will NOT be able to go to a shop and walk out with a gun, let along getting it "for devious purposes".
My personal opinion is that the registry is NOT the main concern for firearm owners - instead, I acutally think that the ATT (authorization to transport) is one of the dumbest policies ever created, as well as CRIMINAL offense being attached to paper offenses like expired licenses or registration certificates (imagine being criminally charged for having your driver's license expired). I also have a problem with our self-defense laws, where people have pretty much no right to defend themselves in life-threatening situations, and are supposed to lay there to die, or wait for the policy to come. I hope to see that portion of our laws change (for the better), and put more emphasis and rights back in the hands of the victims, not the criminals that walk away with a slap on the wrist for breaking into someone's homes or worse yet, hurting someone in the process of doing so.
Also, why do people automatically think that a legal gun owner only acquire firearms for the purpose of (potentially) hurting others? Have you heard of Trap shooting (an Olympic event), precision target shooting (Olympic event), cow boy action shooting, IPSC, IDPA, the list goes on and on, of legitimate shooting sports? Yes, there are crazies out there that MAY commit crimes with their legal firearms (Dawson college shooting comes to mind), but, to brush everyone with the same stroke would be as ignorant as saying that anyone that has a knife has the potential to kill someone, therefore people should not own knives, period...
Look, I think there should be tighter control on WHO can own guns, and the licensing program can be more strict with more detailed background/mental health/behavioral checks, but a crazy person, with or without guns, will carry out their devious plans if they fully intend on doing so. Having a registry system that tracks registered, legally acquired firearms, owned by licensed citizens, will not prevent any crime, nor will it do anything to reduce crime rates. When was the last time you heard about criminals registering their guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber
(Post 7418071)
Maybe you can answer a question for me no one in the other thread has answered, you seem quite knowledgeable about firearms. The gun registry tracks gun ownership, without it the government has no record of a guns whereabouts or who is in possession of it. So, a person could buy a gun and the government would have no idea that the transaction has taken place?
Many people who support scrapping the LGR also want to see the registry for restricted weapons dropped, so I could buy hand guns for devious purposes with no record, like in the states? Posted via RS Mobile |