🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <wiGR9.4032$Hs3.486285@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
 "Dave" <dave128@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Calgary Rob" <calgaryrobnospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:c5GR9.82876
> 
> > Please explain how this could be 'sound enough' in any way shape or form.
> I have yet to hear anything concrete in how the registry is good.
> >
> >  As well, we need a dna database, not a gun registry.
> >
> > Calgary Rob
> > calgaryrob@shaw.ca
> > I like Gravy
> >
> >
> I am familiar enough with your stand on the issue from other forums and have
> no desire to get into an extended debate. I do not favour this form of
> registration, and do not feel that it will in any way accomplish it's
> intended purpose. However I have complied with the registry, and I have
> nothing against gun registration in principle. I have had to register my
> handguns for years, this is nothing new to me. I know that you have a
> different opinion on the whole thing, I can live with that.
> 
> We'll have to disagree on the DNA database also, the opportunity to misuse
> that type of information would cause far worse problems than anything gun
> related.
> 
> 
> 

I think the problem with your position is summed up well enough in your 
own OP:

"The idea of a gun registry is sound enough I suppose but surely this 
one is a fiasco.

I'm not sure that gun violence will actually be reduced as a 
consequence of registration, nobody seems sure of this, and yet that 
was it's only stated purpose."

I too find that I'd like to know what about the idea of a gun registry 
is "sound enough".