Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Media on gun buybacks | Main | Carnival of Cordite »

Toronto Sun on gun registry

Posted by David Hardy · 19 September 2006 10:02 AM

The editorial is here.

· non-US

1 Comment

W. Bailey | September 19, 2006 6:03 PM

"This was nonsense. Gun registries don’t deter such crimes. The main purpose of a gun registry is to warn police if they are entering a house that has registered weapons, primarily in domestic dispute cases. It’s also — combined with requiring gun owners to obtain permits and properly store and transport their weapons — aimed at reducing the spontaneous use of guns in moments of anger, despair or recklessness, that lead to domestic murders, suicides and accidental shootings."

Now there's an interesting piece of rationality with a huge blind spot! Would it not be cheaper and equally effective for police to always assume guns are a possibility in domestic dispute cases? (I'll bet they do anyway.) And what regulations have ever reduced the spontaneous use of weapons (guns, knives, brickbats or pitch forks) "in moments of anger, despair or recklessness"?