Mad Howler wrote:BSH wrote:I'll just start with the last 15 years to keep it simple. UK, Australia, and Canada. That's just the Western, "free" nations; I'm not even going to go to the more openly authoritarian governments.
I'd like to see examples of governments that did NOT, later on down the line, use gun registration as a tool to support gun confiscation. It goes against everything in human nature that such an example could ever have existed.
Er, I think you were asked to support your position with "evidence". Absent of that I get the feeling that the objective of your posts has more to do with distraction, although you may have not been aware of that.
Well, heck, I thought the cases of UK & Australia were common knowledge. Aren't the anti-gun folks always talking about how the gun seizure program in Australia led to a decline in homicide rates? (It cannot be concluded as such, according to academic studies, but that's another subject.) After the UK 1997 Firearms act, 162,000 pistols and 700 tons of ammunition and related equipment were handed in by an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons. (Wikipedia). Australia - This scholarly article contains some notable disclaimers making it evident that it is impossible to conclude that the Australian rifle seizure program can be credited with reducing the homicide rate. Canada is less well known. One can quibble over This one. But there is another law whereby the Canadian government banned .25 & .32 handguns. Since handguns had been registered since 1934, guess what? This is actually a slow-motion confiscation, since existing owners were allowed to hold on to their weapons until they die, then they have to be turned over to the government (but they can't buy ammunition anymore, anyway). Info.