7th Circuit Says Gun Registration is OK. Guns at Obama protests:

[tombogan03884]

I'll just go on record as saying that this is pure BS ... But, I think most of you already understood that.

What purpose does registration serve beyond imposing a tax to posess or a record of who to contact for a round up?

I would also like to get a fair answer to how much gun violence declined when background checks were imposed, and the ability to purchase through catalogs, etc went out the window.  I believe that if we dug into the numbers we would find that all the limitations on our Rights have not done a single thing to change reality.

It had no effect, Violent crime rises or falls based on cultural and economic trends.

[fightingquaker13]

I would also like to get a fair answer to how much gun violence declined when background checks were imposed, and the ability to purchase through catalogs, etc went out the window.  I believe that if we dug into the numbers we would find that all the limitations on our Rights have not done a single thing to change reality.

Here we are in agreement. I hate arguing ideology when facts would solve the problem. We all pro and anti alike think that guns should be kept from criminals. Where we disagree and always will disagree, is whether law abiding folks have that right. The Constitution is on our side, we win, they lose if Heller is nationalized. Proceeding from there, if we take "shall not be infringed" seriously; the question under "strict scrutinty" becomes what is the least restrictive means available to keep felons from buying guns? Do instant background checks work or are they a waste of money? Empirical data would go a long way here to guiding policy.
FQ13

[tt11758]

Here we are in agreement. I hate arguing ideology when facts would solve the problem. We all pro and anti alike think that guns should be kept from criminals. Where we disagree and always will disagree, is whether law abiding folks have that right. The Constitution is on our side, we win, they lose if Heller is nationalized. Proceeding from there, if we take "shall not be infringed" seriously; the question under "strict scrutinty" becomes what is the least restrictive means available to keep felons from buying guns? Do instant background checks work or are they a waste of money? Empirical data would go a long way here to guiding policy.
FQ13

Agreed.  But that would require facts and common sense.

[tombogan03884]

Here we are in agreement. I hate arguing ideology when facts would solve the problem. We all pro and anti alike think that guns should be kept from criminals. Where we disagree and always will disagree, is whether law abiding folks have that right. The Constitution is on our side, we win, they lose if Heller is nationalized. Proceeding from there, if we take "shall not be infringed" seriously; the question under "strict scrutinty" becomes what is the least restrictive means available to keep felons from buying guns? Do instant background checks work or are they a waste of money? Empirical data would go a long way here to guiding policy.
FQ13

Not exactly FQ, I've known to many dopers over the years to believe the myth that you can keep ANY thing away from criminals.
If it is a battle that can not possibly be won then why waste the time, money and effort to lose when by making sure that good people have the will, ability, and equipment to thwart criminals you can direct your resources to out flanking the problem.
What would be the effect on crime if we passed ANOTHER law barring criminals from possessing weapons ?
What would the effect be if the criminals chances of being shot increased by 30% ?

[blackwolfe]

Tom, John Wesley Hardin was shot and killed.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley_Hardin

El Paso lawman John Selman, Jr., arrested Hardin's friend, the widow M'Rose (also spelled Mroz), for "brandishing a gun in public." Hardin confronted Selman, and the two men had a verbal dispute. On being told of the argument, John's 58 year old father John Selman, Sr., who was a constable, approached Hardin on the afternoon of August 19, 1895 and the two men exchanged words. Later that night, Hardin went to the Acme Saloon, where he began playing dice. Shortly before midnight Selman walked in and saw Hardin with his back to him, and shot him in the back of the head, killing him instantly. As Hardin's body lay on the floor, Selman fired three more shots into him. Selman was arrested for the murder and stood trial where he claimed he had fired in self defense. A hung jury resulted in his being released on bond. However, Selman was killed in a shootout on April 6, 1896 by US Marshal George Scarborough. Selman and Scarborough had been playing cards and got into an argument. Both exited to the alley and shot it out, after which Scarborough returned alone. Scarborough was arrested for murder as no gun was found on Selman. However, just before his trial a thief was arrested and it was discovered he had Selman's gun. He stated he had seen the shooting and stolen the gun before the crowd arrived. Scarborough was then released.

On April 5, 1900, four years after he shot John Selman, Scarborough was mortally wounded in a gunfight with two robbers

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

 It doesn't change my point, though I will say that a bullet in the back of the head sounds like a serious medical condition to ME.

Found some more details
http://www.famoustexans.com/johnwesleyhardin.htm

In 1895, Hardin went to El Paso to testify for the defense in a murder trial. Following the trial, he stayed and established a law practice. Just when he seemed to finally be going straight, Hardin began an affair with one of his married female clients. Her husband found out about the affair and Hardin hired some law officials to kill him. One of the hired gunmen, however, Constable John Selman, shot Hardin instead.

Legend has it that his last words were, "Four sixes to beat, Henry." When killed, Hardin was shooting dice with local furniture dealer Henry Brown at the Acme saloon in El Paso.