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

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607823]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. [/QUOTE] That is what they said about Canada's long gun registry. It didn't solve one single crime. But it was used to confiscate guns from legal gun owners.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50607835]That is what they said about Canada's long gun registry. It didn't solve one single crime. But it was used to confiscate guns from legal gun owners.[/QUOTE] How unfortunate. Let's hope Hawaii does it better then.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607849]How unfortunate. Let's hope Hawaii does it better then.[/QUOTE] We really should stop repeating mistakes of the past. Crime involving guns is most often committed by someone who obtained the gun illegally. Which means that database will be useless. Because only law-abiding gun owners will be on it.

[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]We have, and I do fully understand your reasons for saying it like you did. Even so your well thought-out and constructed essay seems to have [I]triggered[/I] a negative response, which is pretty much par for the course in this discussion. [QUOTE=paul simon;50607823]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.[/QUOTE]That's just it though, you're Norwegian and you have [I]no idea[/I] about how much he isn't exaggerating. When you think of "list" your mind isn't chock full of negative things but for us it is, we're not familiar with the Norwegian government we're familiar with [I]our[/I] government and it is rarely to be trusted. We have learned to build a culture of suspicion and hostility toward our government because it's served us extremely well in the past for reasons that are constantly demonstrated to this day. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;50607762]If this happened here and I wanted a gun I would buy one illegally to avoid being put on that list.[/QUOTE]I would make my own for sure, 922r compliant and everything in case I was discovered.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50607860]When you think of "list" your mind isn't chock full of negative things but for us it is, we're not familiar with the Norwegian government we're familiar with [I]our[/I] government and it is rarely to be trusted. We have learned to build a culture of suspicion and hostility toward our government because it's served us extremely well in the past for reasons that are constantly demonstrated to this day.[/QUOTE] That's kind of sad, you know. I think the US needs massive changes in many ways, and stricter gun control eventually should be a product of these changes. But man, those trust issues you all have. It's kind of insane. Do you really think your government will suddenly start killing you? What exactly are you afraid of? (genuinely curious) I just hope for a future where nobody needs guns to protect themselves from everything they're afraid of.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607873]That's kind of sad, you know. I think the US needs massive changes in many ways, and stricter gun control eventually should be a product of these changes. But man, those trust issues you all have. It's kind of insane. Do you really think your government will suddenly start killing you? I just hope for a future where nobody needs guns to protect themselves from everything they're afraid of.[/QUOTE] Please present evidence that further gun control would work in reducing crime. Then we can have a serious debate about it.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50607876]Please present evidence that further gun control would work in reducing crime. Then we can have a serious debate about it.[/QUOTE] I'm sure you can find someone else to debate that with. It's not on my agenda today. My idea is more that if you reduce crime / improve mental health, people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves with guns and eventually you could introduce stuff like licenses. Of course, you first need to deal with the fear of lists, and the reason for that fear.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607873]That's kind of sad, you know. I think the US needs massive changes in many ways, and stricter gun control eventually should be a product of these changes. But man, those trust issues you all have. It's kind of insane. Do you really think your government will suddenly start killing you? What exactly are you afraid of? (genuinely curious) I just hope for a future where nobody needs guns to protect themselves from everything they're afraid of.[/QUOTE] Now I'm not suggesting that people get up in arms every time the government does something we don't like, but [I]trust issues?[/I] Have you seen the kinds of politicians we have these days?

If the system contains all school teachers and daycare workers, gun owners honestly doesn't seem that far off. I am not sure what the monitoring aspects concludes too but, "allows police in Hawaii to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue to possess a gun after being arrested." Seems like a agreeable goal.

If there was ever a time for trust issues with the government, it'd be nowadays. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cold;50607906]If the system contains all school teachers and daycare workers, gun owners honestly doesn't seem that far off. I am not sure what the monitoring aspects concludes too but, "allows police in Hawaii to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue to possess a gun after being arrested." Seems like a nobel goal.[/QUOTE] I'm sure that at least some people involved had good intentions, but that is beside the point. Putting law abiding gun owners is a criminal database is a failure to observe due process.

[QUOTE=Apache249;50607905]Now I'm not suggesting that people get up in arms every time the government does something we don't like, but [I]trust issues?[/I] Have you seen the kinds of politicians we have these days?[/QUOTE] Maybe I phrased that a bit oddly. Trust issues = The government isn't trusted, and that's an issue. Probably an issue that the government should be dealing with, not you.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607891]I'm sure you can find someone else to debate that with. It's not on my agenda today. My idea is more that if you reduce crime / improve mental health, people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves with guns and eventually you could introduce stuff like licenses. Of course, you first need to deal with the fear of lists, and the reason for that fear.[/QUOTE] Well, my problem is I don't want laws based on feelings. And I have not seen any evidence that more gun control or a gun ban has any effect on crime. You seem to feel that if we solve the violence problem that we should still restrict guns. And I disagree, there isn't any reason to restrict them if the violence problem is solved.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607873]But man, those trust issues you all have. It's kind of insane. Do you really think your government will suddenly start killing you? What exactly are you afraid of? (genuinely curious)[/QUOTE]Do you remember when 9/11 happened? We got the PATRIOT act, started capturing people and torturing them, and we started bombing "suspected terrorists" with remote-controlled aircraft. Oh, and we invaded Iraq and stayed there despite growing resentment toward that and we became [I]furious[/I] when people learned that the government was full of people who financially benefited off the war. Then later on our economy crashed because of [I]even more[/I] shady bullshit, companies started to get bailed out, jobs were disappearing, people were unemployed, all the while the government is trying to tell us how they're totally going to fix it. That's just the last ten years. Do you really support my government's behavior during that time? I know for a fact you don't, I also know that you have absolutely no equivalent phenomena in your government. Actually I find it hard to believe that you can even fully understand the [I]emotions[/I] of being an American citizen who looks at the government, hell this election, and realizes no matter what we do we're going to be fucked [I]somehow[/I] and we spend our time trying to wonder how. No shit we have trust issues, wouldn't you?

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607891]I'm sure you can find someone else to debate that with. It's not on my agenda today. My idea is more that if you reduce crime / improve mental health, people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves with guns and eventually you could introduce stuff like licenses. Of course, you first need to deal with the fear of lists, and the reason for that fear.[/QUOTE] If you demonstrably reduce crime and improve mental health care, you don't [I]need[/I] licenses since you've relegated the problems that were causing guns to be misused in the first place to statistical irrelevance.

[QUOTE=Kigen;50607919]Well, my problem is I don't want laws based on feelings. And I have not seen any evidence that more gun control or a gun ban has any effect on crime. You seem to feel that if we solve the violence problem that we should still restrict guns. And I disagree, there isn't any reason to restrict them if the violence problem is solved.[/QUOTE] Even if crime did decline strongly, the enormous presence of guns would still cause tons of accidents due to mishandling and such. If crime did decrease to the point where guns were no longer sensible to keep as home defense tools, it would in my opinion be only sensible to restrict gun ownership (simple license) and enforce gun lockers to keep them away from hands unwelcome. In practice this should not affect the daily life of a gun hobbyist, whilst further protecting those around him from accidental exposure to high velocity lead. A license should serve to ensure that the gun owner knows how to safely operate it. (through education) Currently this isn't a realistic solution, however. And maybe it never will be. [editline]28th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50607944]Do you really support my government's behavior during that time? I know for a fact you don't, I also know that you have absolutely no equivalent phenomena in your government. Actually I find it hard to believe that you can even fully understand the [I]emotions[/I] of being an American citizen who looks at the government, hell this election, and realizes no matter what we do we're going to be fucked [I]somehow[/I] and we spend our time trying to wonder how. No shit we have trust issues, wouldn't you?[/QUOTE] Yeah I believe you're right on all of this.

I don't have an issue with requiring a safety course (or proof of having taken one, or even some kind of on-the-spot handling test) to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, if the government wants to subsidize the classes. I don't have an issue with requiring a locker if the government wants to subsidize the safes + installation.. based on how many guns will be put in it. They are absurdly expensive to purchase, move, and install, especially as you get into safes that will house a common collection. I have picked up many guns over my years but at no point could I ever afford to buy a safe to house them all. Right now they live on a gun rack, unloaded. Ammunition is stored in locked ammo cans on the other side of the room because kids in the family. Additionally, requiring guns to be stored in safes defeats the collector's ability to display his (or her) collection. So that won't really fly without some extra thought.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50607960]Even if crime did decline strongly, the enormous presence of guns would still cause tons of accidents due to mishandling and such. If crime did decrease to the point where guns were no longer sensible to keep as home defense tools, it would in my opinion be only sensible to restrict gun ownership (simple license) and enforce gun lockers to keep them away from hands unwelcome.[/QUOTE]I would prefer firearms education for young people (not at all uncommon in previous decades) that taught safety much like how they teach safety for crossing the street which causes far, far more deaths. [QUOTE]Yeah I believe you're right on all of this.[/QUOTE]It's not that our government is evil or that government itself is bad, but it's that our government is full of assholes.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50607983]I don't have an issue with requiring a safety course (or proof of having taken one, or even some kind of on-the-spot handling test) to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, if the government wants to subsidize the classes. I don't have an issue with requiring a locker if the government wants to subsidize the safes + installation.. based on how many guns will be put in it. They are absurdly expensive to purchase, move, and install, especially as you get into safes that will house a common collection. I have picked up many guns over my years but at no point could I ever afford to buy a safe to house them all. Right now they live on a gun rack, unloaded. Ammunition is stored in locked ammo cans on the other side of the room because kids in the family. Additionally, requiring guns to be stored in safes defeats the collector's ability to display his (or her) collection. So that won't really fly without some extra thought.[/QUOTE] Whatever locking mechanism that makes them unusable for anyone that isn't intended to use them would suffice, it doesn't really have to be a big locker. I'm sure there exists better & cheaper systems. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50607995]I would prefer firearms education for young people (not at all uncommon in previous decades) that taught safety much like how they teach safety for crossing the street which causes far, far more deaths.[/QUOTE] This fits within the idea I described. If it's better to do it when they're in school, sure why not.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50601905]I get that, but it sets a precedent that can spill over into other things other than guns. That's the problem.[/QUOTE] This is the internet's best argument for any type of regulation. Rinse wash and repeat for any type of new laws.

[QUOTE=paul simon;50608001]Whatever locking mechanism that makes them unusable for anyone that isn't intended to use them would suffice, it doesn't really have to be a big locker. I'm sure there exists better & cheaper systems.[/QUOTE] There are, yes, but all of them have pros and cons. A safe is the gentlest and surest way to do it; the second gentlest way is to store them away from ammo but accidents can still happen this way. You can use a trigger lock, which won't work on every gun and can really fuck up some guns finish-wise (or even mechanically in some cases I've heard). You can use a bolt lock (which is like a bike lock that you run through the ejection port and magwell to prevent the gun from closing), but this can rub the finish away or cause mechanical wear if the bolt is accidentally closed forcefully on it (IE the bolt release on an AR series rifle).

[QUOTE=Apache249;50607909]If there was ever a time for trust issues with the government, it'd be nowadays. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] I'm sure that at least some people involved had good intentions, but that is beside the point. Putting law abiding gun owners is a criminal database is a failure to observe due process.[/QUOTE] How does a database like this work and what does it do, what implications does it have on people, who has access to it? Like I honestly don't know or can find anything on it, but everybody else reacts like it's an inverse Schindler's list. It's a little weird you consider it a violation of rights considering everybody else who's on it for reasons beyond their control.

NYC and New Orleans post Katrina both used their totally innocent registries as shopping lists when they decided it was time to remove guns from their population, even though those registries were created under the auspices of "don't worry guys we won't use this for confiscation it's totally just to keep a list of guns, owners and addresses that we definitely need [del]for some reason[/del] to fight crime [del]somehow[/del]" Canada also has this issue. When RCMP decides a gun is suddenly too evil to own, it knows exactly who has that gun. There is no compensation that I know of for the gun owner, even if that gun is later somehow not evil anymore and declassified. These registries serve one purpose and it has nothing to do with curbing crime. e: Correction, New Orleans didn't have a gun registry(?) but you can imagine how it would've helped when they decided to go door to door. A list like this, aside from being effectively a gun registry, criminalizes gun owners by mandating an increased level of monitoring. That is not OK.

[QUOTE=Cold;50607906]If the system contains all school teachers and daycare workers, gun owners honestly doesn't seem that far off. I am not sure what the monitoring aspects concludes too but, "allows police in Hawaii to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue to possess a gun after being arrested." Seems like a agreeable goal.[/QUOTE] Except this is a violation of Due Process under the 5th, and 14th Amendments.

[QUOTE=Cold;50608047]How does a database like this work and what does it do, what implications does it have on people, who has access to it? Like I honestly don't know or can find anything on it, but everybody else reacts like it's an inverse Schindler's list. It's a little weird you consider it a violation of rights considering everybody else who's on it for reasons beyond their control.[/QUOTE] Are you familiar with 'due process'? Because that's the important part. If you get put on a criminal list because you were convicted of doing a crime, then that's a different story. Owning a gun isn't a crime.

[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] And if they are used to commit a crime, then what? The crime has been committed. What has this prevented?

[QUOTE=Apache249;50608270]Are you familiar with 'due process'? Because that's the important part. If you get put on a criminal list because you were convicted of doing a crime, then that's a different story. Owning a gun isn't a crime.[/QUOTE] But that's implying being on the list is a violation of anyone's rights, which is why i am asking what the database it is and what implications it has aka what rights does it violate?

[QUOTE=Cold;50608369]But that's implying being on the list is a violation of anyone's rights, which is why i am asking what the database it is and what implications it has aka what rights does it violate?[/QUOTE] They are lumping gun owners with criminals. [quote]Hawaii Governor David Ige, a Democrat, on Thursday signed into law a bill to have police in the state enroll people into an FBI criminal monitoring service after they register their firearms as already required, his office said in a statement.[/quote] Do you not see how this creates a "us vs them" mentality? And creates undue suspicion on gun owners.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50608012]There are, yes, but all of them have pros and cons. A safe is the gentlest and surest way to do it; the second gentlest way is to store them away from ammo but accidents can still happen this way. You can use a trigger lock, which won't work on every gun and can really fuck up some guns finish-wise (or even mechanically in some cases I've heard). You can use a bolt lock (which is like a bike lock that you run through the ejection port and magwell to prevent the gun from closing), but this can rub the finish away or cause mechanical wear if the bolt is accidentally closed forcefully on it (IE the bolt release on an AR series rifle).[/QUOTE] putting a lock on a closet is probably the cheapest solution for storage of larger collections if you have a closet to spare.

Government is the new God - just trust them and they'll do no wrong, right? History will repeat itself.

[QUOTE=BioWaster;50608512]Government is the new God - just trust them and they'll do no wrong, right? History will repeat itself.[/QUOTE] This is the worst comparison ever.