Hawaii becomes first U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database - Polidicks

[QUOTE=OvB;50602011]No law-abiding, non-criminal citizen should be on a federal database without consent. No exceptions. There's no fair legal assumption that any wrong doing is going to ever be committed because someone owns a gun. This gives precedent to further discrimination in the guise of stopping crime. "well we put everyone who lives in the ghetto on a list because they [I]might[/I] commit crime." "Well we put every Muslim on a list because they [I]might[/I] be a terrorist" (something that's been talked about, I remind you.) All in the name of safety, right?[/QUOTE] “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Benjamin Franklin

[QUOTE=Fort83;50602851]If you're truly a law-abiding citizen and gun owner, then you have nothing to worry about. Your precious guns aren't at risk unless you start committing crimes or are otherwise deemed unfit to own one. That said it might be for the best if they didn't call it a "criminal record database".[/QUOTE] If you don't think they're hiding anything, why are you looking? Sorry, but "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is not an acceptable answer to anything. Also, "deemed unfit to own one"? Who decides that? There's already been cases of "self defense" being deemed not a good enough reason to issue a permit, where the applicant was fucking murdered shortly thereafter. Psych evals? Sure, that even seems reasonable. Expanded background checks? Maybe after they start [I]utilizing the ones they have now.[/I] Placing law-abiding citizens on a watchlist that serves only to demonize them? No. Not acceptable in any way, shape, or form.

[QUOTE=General J;50604686]you guys are right clearly the current state of guns in the us is a non-issue and on par with other developed pro-gun 1st world countries of the world [IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/57da/f/2016/036/3/d/ok_hand_emoji_by_catstam-d9qkd2a.png[/IMG] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "I don't know what to do to fix it, but it's clearly not [I]this[/I]."[/QUOTE] My ideal solution would look at decriminalizing minor drugs, so we don't turn 18 year olds caught with weed into criminals. We would focus on poverty and income inequality so people below the poverty line are less inclined to rob and steal to make ends meet. We would improve education and provide after-school activities in art, music, science, and sports so inner-city children are less inclined to get involved with gangs. We would close the system of privately run Prisons and move to an incarceration system focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. As it stands, Prison in the US is basically "Criminal University" We would treat mental illness as a medical issue and not hide it like something to be shamed. People would be given the help they need and those of them that are thought to be too dangerous with weapons would not be allowed to buy firearms until their condition has improved and been signed off by a medical doctor. America has a crime problem, that's a fact. But guns are not the cause of that problem. Banning guns might see a decrease in the number of fatalities, but with the amount of guns already in the US, it would take decades to make a dent in the supply of illegal arms. Thus career criminals would still have access to them. There's no magical button to make all guns disappear, so gun bans would only harm those who use them lawfully, while not doing anything to target the underlying cause of the crime itself. It's taking away the blocks from the kids at daycare, but not telling them why they shouldn't throw them at each other.

Why doesn't the US adopt some of our Canadian gun practices? I mean we're right above you guys, still have a lot of guns, and we have little to no mass-shootings at all, and gun violence is pretty low everywhere.

[QUOTE=General J;50604686]you guys are right clearly the current state of guns in the us is a non-issue and on par with other developed pro-gun 1st world countries of the world [IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/57da/f/2016/036/3/d/ok_hand_emoji_by_catstam-d9qkd2a.png[/IMG] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "I don't know what to do to fix it, but it's clearly not [I]this[/I]."[/QUOTE] Plenty of gun owners have suggestions for fixing the issue. Grenadiac gave you a great suggestion further up the page. I recently [URL="https://medium.com/@rossradford/why-common-gun-control-proposals-fail-and-how-to-do-better-c4fe47717f60#.7amz395s9"]wrote an essay[/URL] on the subject and offered six suggestions for addressing the causes and symptoms of gun violence from the gun regulation side, while explaining how gun violence is a product of social conditions that need to be addressed too. So, y'know, the problem's a little more complicated than 'put everyone on a list, it'll solve everything', and rejecting illogical proposals like that is not synonymous with accepting the status quo. The inability of Democrats to pursue useful legislation instead of hammering at the same few ineffectual scapegoats over and over again isn't my problem, and I'm under no obligation to support a pointless feel-good measure because they can't be bothered to tackle the issue from any other perspective.

[QUOTE=flamehead5;50605282]Why doesn't the US adopt some of our Canadian gun practices? I mean we're right above you guys, still have a lot of guns, and we have little to no mass-shootings at all, and gun violence is pretty low everywhere.[/QUOTE] I don't think your gun control practices, which are kind of extreme in many cases, are necessarily to thank for your low crime rate. Canada is highly educated and doesn't have the same kind of poverty/gang issue that the US has, and that has a more direct link to crime.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50604311]Slow day, I'll address this. Yea i'd be pretty bothered by that ruling, but not because of the guns, but because of the massive implications that would have. Such a ruling would also affect the first amendment, as the wording is similar (so if any case came up, the SCOTUS would be justified in saying "The internet/radio/TV aren't protected speech areas, due to the fact that they weren't around during the creation of the constitution"); such a ruling would essentially give SCOTUS a blank check to rule against any and every modern form of anything, in favor of "how it was during the old days". Again, if the first amendment protects SPEECH, and not the means to said speech; and the second amendment protects ARMS, and not the means by which said arms operate; then redefining arms to an archaic definition would allow the court system to redefine what forms of media are protected by the court. Either we're rational and realize that times change, and update our definitions; or we're idiots, and we don't update our definitions, and we wonder why the rest of the world looks and laughs.[/QUOTE] But as you said earlier, the supreme Court doesn't rule on the use of arms, but what arms are considered to be arms and not something else. So it wouldn't impede at all the first amendment. because again, the supreme Court decides what an arm is [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50604703]except we've suggested solutions and all you guys do is dismiss them and go "not enough, must destroy gun" here's a good first step pros: - discourages straw sales - discourages blind sales - discourages "gun show loophole" - establishes firm provenance for a firearm that is used in a crime - punishes private parties for negligent sales - catches more felons and such trying to buy guns illegally - doesn't create a shopping list for a ban - doesn't criminalize gun owners or treat them like bad guys - doesn't prevent private sales or safe trades among friends and family - doesn't destroy a bunch of property or historic items and heirlooms - stops the FBI from deliberately allowing criminals to purchase guns - begins to address actual issues rather than simply existing as a feelgood measure cons: - ???[/QUOTE] Youre completely right, we should increase funding into the FBI research division which you liked in this thread as a future dystopian government. You really are jumping through hoops to qualify your answers. Nobody here has even said they want guns to be destroyed, agaim, it's you assuming that everyone here who wants regulation wants to destroy all of your guns. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50605404]I don't think your gun control practices, which are kind of extreme in many cases, are necessarily to thank for your low crime rate. Canada is highly educated and doesn't have the same kind of poverty/gang issue that the US has, and that has a more direct link to crime.[/QUOTE] Or you know, they have less amounts of guns and different types of guns for hunting, still not even close to the access that the average American has. You can attribute some of the murders to mental health, but you can't attribute them all to it. Saying so is completely idiotic and facile. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Fourier;50604477]If government has heavily trained people with guns, tanks, fucking drones, you can't really peacefully overthrow government (if it gets heavily corrupt)[/QUOTE] If the government has drones tanks and heavily trained people, its highly unlikely you'd be able to overthrow the government anyways.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50605530]Youre completely right, we should increase funding into the FBI research division which you liked in this thread as a future dystopian government. You really are jumping through hoops to qualify your answers. Nobody here has even said they want guns to be destroyed, agaim, it's you assuming that everyone here who wants regulation wants to destroy all of your guns.[/QUOTE] Or you could just cherry pick 5 words from his post, and make your inflated argument on that, rather than actually going after the 11 perfectly acceptable points he listed. [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50605530]Or you know, they have less amounts of guns and different types of guns for hunting, still not even close to the access that the average American has. You can attribute some of the murders to mental health, but you can't attribute them all to it. Saying so is completely idiotic and facile.[/QUOTE] No, but we can attribute the fact that most murders are done by those who are mentally unstable. Which I guess could be solved by fixing mental health? I doubt you could find many cases were you would go, "Oh, yeah, that guy killed that other guy in a completely sane act." [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50605530]If the government has drones tanks and heavily trained people, its highly unlikely you'd be able to overthrow the government anyways.[/QUOTE] How well is that working in the middle east against nothing but insurgents armed with Soviet-era weaponry, added on with the fact they have no infrastructure.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50605621]Or you could just cherry pick 5 words from his post, and make your inflated argument on that, rather than actually going after the 11 perfectly acceptable points he listed.[/QUOTE] Yeah this guy couldn't have a conversation if someone else wrote his lines for him. I'm done debating with him.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50605392]I recently [URL="https://medium.com/@rossradford/why-common-gun-control-proposals-fail-and-how-to-do-better-c4fe47717f60#.7amz395s9"]wrote an essay[/URL][/QUOTE]That was truly a pleasure to read, I don't agree with your first point but only because of the way our mental healthcare system works; I did enjoy reading all of it. (and your response to that retard in the comments lmao) [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50605530]Youre completely right, we should increase funding into the FBI research division which you liked in this thread as a future dystopian government. You really are jumping through hoops to qualify your answers. Nobody here has even said they want guns to be destroyed, agaim, it's you assuming that everyone here who wants regulation wants to destroy all of your guns.[/QUOTE]Except you are, either the guns are a problem that have to go (thus no grandfather clause) or they're not a problem and this is actually about controlling people. So which is it? You get to pick one. [QUOTE]Or you know, they have less amounts of guns and different types of guns for hunting,[/QUOTE]lmao no they don't, what the hell. Canadian hunters are functionally identical to US hunters with the exception that we don't have a law enforcement organization that bans things by name. [QUOTE]still not even close to the access that the average American has.[/QUOTE]Why do gun control advocates feel the need to talk [url=http://www.kellysonline.ca/products/famae-sg-tactical-rifle-non-restricted]out[/url] [url=http://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/iwi-tavor-tar-21-223-18-5.html]of[/url] [url=http://www.cabelas.ca/product/69872/robinson-armament-xcr-m-semi-auto-rifle]their[/url] [url=http://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/kel-tec-ksg-12ga-2-3-4-or-3-18-5-barrel.html]ass?[/url] Four links there. Did you forget that we do actually know what the hell we're talking about? [QUOTE]You can attribute some of the murders to mental health, but you can't attribute them all to it. Saying so is completely idiotic and facile.[/QUOTE]Good thing nobody said that and Grenadiac was instead talking about our crime problem, no mention of mental health anywhere. Or did you fuck up and use the wrong word? If so are you actually saying crime has [I]nothing[/I] to do with homicide rates? [QUOTE]If the government has drones tanks and heavily trained people, its highly unlikely you'd be able to overthrow the government anyways.[/QUOTE]Yeah because the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan was instantly crush-[I]ohhhh that's right, no it wasn't![/I] Not to mention that the first fucking drone strike that results in little dead American children on national television would effectively doom the federal government. Or did you think that the government waging a war with it's own people wouldn't result in collateral damage? [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] I imagine not, but don't worry: the people in charge have a much firmer grasp on the situation are well aware that starting a civil war is a bad fucking idea.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50605829]That was truly a pleasure to read, I don't agree with your first point but only because of the way our mental healthcare system works; I did enjoy reading all of it.[/QUOTE] Thank you. I think we've talked about the HIPAA issue before- I absolutely agree that the way American society stigmatizes mental healthcare represents a problem for fair handling of people with relatively benign mental health issues tied to their medical histories, but I didn't want to get into too much detail on that point given that reform of the mental healthcare system is a little more nitty-gritty than I wanted the piece to be. Same goes for universal background checks vs opening the NICS to private sale while stipulating legal liability.

If you're using your gun legally, you have nothing to fear. This can make it easier for guns to be tracked in case they do commit a crime

[QUOTE=catbarf;50605392] I recently [URL="https://medium.com/@rossradford/why-common-gun-control-proposals-fail-and-how-to-do-better-c4fe47717f60#.7amz395s9"]wrote an essay[/URL] on the subject and offered six suggestions for addressing the causes and symptoms of gun violence from the gun regulation side, while explaining how gun violence is a product of social conditions that need to be addressed too.[/QUOTE] This is a good essay. The bit at the bottom about actual, genuine compromise is my favorite.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50606435]If you're using your gun legally, you have nothing to fear. This can make it easier for guns to be tracked in case they do commit a crime[/QUOTE] Again, this is blatantly unconstitutional. If you're using your internet legally, you have nothing to fear. This just makes it easier for the NSA to track bad guys.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50606046]Thank you. I think we've talked about the HIPAA issue before- I absolutely agree that the way American society stigmatizes mental healthcare represents a problem for fair handling of people with relatively benign mental health issues tied to their medical histories, but I didn't want to get into too much detail on that point given that reform of the mental healthcare system is a little more nitty-gritty than I wanted the piece to be. Same goes for universal background checks vs opening the NICS to private sale while stipulating legal liability.[/QUOTE] I got a chance to read through your essay. As a gun owner (and AR-15 owner) I think you hit the nail on the head. Congrats on so neatly summing it up.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602110]Repeating arms were already in use when the United States was founded, so you are wrong[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bdd458;50602116]please note that the Puckle Gun and Girandoni Air Rifle both existed in the time of the Founding Fathers (in fact, the Girandoni Air Rifle was used by some units in the Austrian military, one of the leading nations of the era) and gave the Founding Fathers a glimpse of the future of Firearms.[/QUOTE] No, no, no, no. The fact that repeating firearms existed in 1776 implies nothing about the Founding Fathers or the Second Amendment. This is especially the case since both the Puckle gun and the air rifle were made in extremely small quantities, thus being very expensive and only ever receiving limited use. From what I can find, it doesn't seem the Puckle gun ever even saw the battlefield. If you're going to include random small historical facts in your argument, please at least try using relevant ones.

The whole "they included the second amendment because they only had muskets back then and those are acceptable :downs:" argument is one which a) is used exclusively by people who know little to nothing about guns and b) completely misses the point of the second amendment.

Whether or not they knew we would have semi-auto and full-auto weapons is irrelevant. If the purpose of the Amendment was to make sure the people have the right to bear arms and form a militia, it wouldn't make sense to limit what kind of arms that militia could use. They're not going to say "Oh, well the Militias can only use single shot rifles because we can't have people owning cannons." The Amendment explicitly states "being necessary to the security of a free State." If they saw it necessary to the security of a free State, then putting restrictions on what those arms could or couldn't be would be a handicap when the whole idea was to be on equal playing field with the tyrannical government/invaders. (which wasn't necessarily as unreasonable back then as it might be today). To me it seems clear that they intended the people to have accessibility to these things so that they could fight off oppression from a/the state. It's a stupid argument because its obvious that in the context of today, it's much more complicated due to the advancement of arms. However, things like fully-automatic weapons, tanks, cannons, suppressors, etc are [I]still legal[/I] to own. It's just complicated to get into ownership and you can't exactly go down to your local gun store and by an M60 without putting a load of work into it. So technically the ability to fight a tyrannical government is still there. Albeit a lot harder. (you can bet there would be an insurgency of southern Americans fighting in the woods with Dodge Ram technical's and rebel flags if such a thing ever happened) It's a far-fetched scenario but it's a good right to have written down as a reminder. It's like a fire extinguisher or first aid kit. Something you hope you never have to use, but it's good that it's sitting there under the sink [I]just in case.[/I]

[QUOTE=Apache249;50606972]The whole "they included the second amendment because they only had muskets back then and those are acceptable :downs:" argument is one which a) is used exclusively by people who know little to nothing about guns and b) completely misses the point of the second amendment.[/QUOTE] I agree that argument is ridiculous, but "the Girandoni and Puckle gun show the founding fathers knew the future" is extremely poor historical thinking. I'm not anti-gun. However, the pro-gun crowd generally disappoints me with the low quality of the arguments they use, and a general unwillingness to accept any compromise at all in gun control policy.

[QUOTE=daschnek;50607043]I agree that argument is ridiculous, but "the Girandoni and Puckle gun show the founding fathers knew the future" is extremely poor historical thinking. I'm not anti-gun. However, the pro-gun crowd generally disappoints me with the low quality of the arguments they use, and a general unwillingness to accept any compromise at all in gun control policy.[/QUOTE] The single-shot musket & cannon argument is such a shitty one that there's not really a better counter than "they had other things at the time" since it's an objective fact. Their being widely used or not is largely irrelevant to the fact that they existed and that it is unlikely that the signers of the Constitution, several of them being very forward-looking people and [I]inventors[/I], both believed that only single shot muskets existed and that they would never get better than that. Someone else mentioned [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater]a repeating wheel-lock rifle that saw some military service and was invented even earlier, in the [I]mid-1600s[/I][/url]. Additionally Girandonis aren't as rare as you are saying. They were widespread enough that many have survived today in operable condition and at least a handful found their way to the US in the period to be used by Lewis & Clark. Regarding unwillingness to compromise I'd implore you to read the rest of my posts in this thread as well as the other two popular gun control topics in this section to see my personal viewpoint on the matter. Post #204 in this thread is a good starting point. Here is a post of mine from another thread that sums it up: [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50605954]Here's the bottom line for those of you who don't get it: Most gun owners are [B]not opposed to some regulation[/B]. Almost every pro-control argument fails to recognize this. The issue is that while grabbers like Feinstein, the Brady Bunch, etc. are the ones leading the charge, we aren't going to give any ground because we know from experience that they won't stop at just regulation. If they can't ban them outright, they will wrap them up in so much red tape that nobody can buy them in order to jack the prices up into orbit. We know that trusting this government to regulate our hobby results in it being snatched away, so we as a collective have put on the brakes. I absolutely believe regulation is important, but I will not move on this issue until the existing arbitrary controls are removed and re-written. I'll remind you that NFA '34, which is currently the root of every other piece of legislation, was used to classify a bit of shoestring as a machine gun such that owning a bit of shoestring of that length in conjunction with an M1/M1A platform rifle could constitute felony intent to construct a machine gun. It took them 11 years to decide that shoe strings aren't machine guns. 11. Fucking. Years. The current rules are a stupid labyrinth of red tape and landmines (put a Soviet-made magazine in your 922(r) compliant AK platform rifle and become a felon! woo!) that need to fuck off forever and be re-designed in a way that doesn't presume gun owners are a hivemind out to destroy the world. When we're no longer being strangled, we'll be happy to talk shop on new, logical controls.[/QUOTE] Finally, catbarf has written an excellent article that neatly explains gun owners' views on the matter, with which I am in full agreement as someone who owns 13 of them: [url]https://medium.com/@rossradford/why-common-gun-control-proposals-fail-and-how-to-do-better-c4fe47717f60#.7amz395s9[/url]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50607099]The single-shot musket & cannon argument is such a shitty one that there's not really a better counter than "they had other things at the time" since it's an objective fact. Their being widely used or not is largely irrelevant to the fact that they existed and that it is unlikely that the signers of the Constitution, several of them being very forward-looking people and inventors, both believed that only single shot muskets existed and that they would never get better than that. Someone else mentioned a repeating rifle that presumably saw about as much use as the Girandoni and was invented even earlier, in the mid-1600s. [/QUOTE] You can't presume that historical figures could use those facts to predict the future - much in the same way that no matter how much information we have, we're bad at predicting the future. This is a common fallacy for those looking to use historical arguments. [QUOTE]Additionally Girandonis aren't as rare as you are saying. They were widespread enough that many have survived today in operable condition and at least a handful found their way to the US in the period to be used by Lewis & Clark.[/QUOTE] It wasn't a handful, but just a single rifle owned by Lewis which they primarily used for demonstrations. There's no evidence, at least that I know of, that it received combat use. Girandoni production in Europe only numbered in the hundreds. [QUOTE]Regarding unwillingness to compromise I'd implore you to read the rest of my posts in this thread as well as the other two popular gun control topics in this section to see my personal viewpoint on the matter. Post #204 in this thread is a good starting point. Here is a post of mine from another thread that sums it up: [/QUOTE] It's good that you're willing to accept compromise, but the reality is that the US gun lobby doesn't. Many of the hardcore, "2A fundamentalist" types do not. That's a major political force that needs to be fought against if we want to have a less violent society. While I believe in an individual right to own firearms for self-defense, I think there's a valid case to be made that personal firearm ownership is a component cause of the (comparatively) violent state of American society. It's not the primary cause, bun gun ownership is a major factor when combined with numerous other social problems. It would be perfectly reasonable to make restrictions that limit the overall supply of firearms (not necessarily by making restrictions at the point of sale of firearms), but these policies simply will not appear due to the right wing having completely abandoned any rational philosophy of governance.

I can easily figure that technology is only going to get better. If I want to guarantee someone a right to only one type of a rapidly evolving class of things, I'll be more specific than [I]the entire category[/I]. I don't think that only a single Girandoni came to the US. Lewis & Clark only had one, yes, but I recall seeing that 20-30 of them were imported. They bought theirs on the continent IIRC. As for why the "gun lobby" won't accept compromise - I addressed that in my post. We don't, and realistically cannot be expected to, trust the government to legislate fairly as things are currently. "The gun lobby" regularly proposes rational controls that get shot down for not being enough.

[QUOTE=daschnek;50607262] While I believe in an individual right to own firearms for self-defense, I think there's a valid case to be made that personal firearm ownership is a component cause of the (comparatively) violent state of American society. It's not the primary cause, bun gun ownership is a major factor when combined with numerous other social problems. It would be perfectly reasonable to make restrictions that limit the overall supply of firearms (not necessarily by making restrictions at the point of sale of firearms), but these policies simply will not appear due to the right wing having completely abandoned any rational philosophy of governance.[/QUOTE] So please prove to me that gun bans make any kind statistically relevant dent in crime. Because I want laws that will actually work. Not laws that will not because they weren't drafted to control crime, they were drafted to give government more power. See my argument with someone else in another thread. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524519&p=50603289&viewfull=1#post50603289[/url]

The problem is that putting them in the FBI database might mix them in with real potential criminals. When you dilute the database like that, real criminals may fall through the cracks. If I get put on a list when I buy a gun, I don't care. However, I don't want to be on the same list as potential terrorists, criminals, etc. As long as I don't do anything illegal with my gun or somehow give off the idea that I am mentally unstable, then they probably just move on from me to someone else. The problem with this, even though it's not inherently bad, is that it slows the process down considerably.

The 'founding fathers couldn't have foreseen semi-autos' argument is specious, because it's speculating on their knowledge and principles, and applying modern concepts of military/civilian separation to the citizen militia that comprised the early United States. There is overwhelming evidence that the intent was for ordinary citizens to be armed like soldiers, so that they could act as soldiers when called upon. Now, if you want to argue that technological advances mean we need to re-evaluate that, then that's fine, but you have to recognize that the same argument can be used against other amendments as well. The First Amendment, if we follow this logic, was only meant to cover written and spoken word. They couldn't have foreseen the Internet, so surely we must recognize that the power the Internet gives radical groups the ability to organize like never before and it's time to re-evaluate this outdated notion of 'free speech'. If, on the other hand, you take the position that the [I]principle[/I] of the First is to protect the free exchange of ideas without government restriction, even though the technologies and risks are far beyond those in the time of the founding fathers, and that the First is not meant to be re-evaluated every time communication technology incrementally improves- then you should understand why pro-gun Americans view the 'they couldn't have foreseen AR-15s' argument with contempt.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50602001]criminalizing law abiding citizens based on arbitrary criteria? hey, it's the [B]exact reason[/B] the founding fathers wanted to make sure the people have access to weapons[/QUOTE] Being on a list =/= being a criminal

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607756]Being on a list =/= being a criminal[/QUOTE] being on a list of criminals to be monitored round the clock even though you haven't committed a crime = criminalizing (in the sense that it treats you like a criminal)

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602090][Hawaii] could be gun free and be kept gun free.[/QUOTE] *For law-abiding citizens. Your officers are still going to need firearms, which means you still have them on the island. Even in a perfect scenario where Hawaii magically keeps out all smuggling and criminal import, all it now takes is for one deranged or corrupt officer. What a waste of everyone's time and resources.

If this happened here and I wanted a gun I would buy one illegally to avoid being put on that list.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50607759]being on a list of criminals to be monitored round the clock even though you haven't committed a crime = criminalizing (in the sense that it treats you like a criminal)[/QUOTE] For me this only sounds like a good thing really. If a gun crime happens in a certain area, the FBI / police could use this database to more quickly find the perpetrator. And you're clearly exaggerating - It's just a list of people who own guns, not a list of people to constantly monitor (seriously doubt they'd have the resources to do that) Everyone who owns a gun in Norway is in a sense on a "list", but that doesn't mean we feel like or are treated like criminals. The best fix for this situation is a change of mindset.