Networked guns test in CA and TX

[Darmalus]

Could you expand on your use of the verb "to backdoor?"

Basically he means to say that if you make it mandatory for every gun to have a camera you are going to have to find some way of enforcing it. And this can easily be used to justify some sort of centralized registry thats there to keep track of who owns guns, something that americans are apparently pathologically terrified of.

Not sure why a registry would need to be involved. Something simple like: All guns made after 20XX must have a gun camera. Removing or deliberately disabling the camera is a crime, guns made after 20XX without a camera are illegal. If you get caught doing bad stuff and have a gun made after 20XX with a disabled camera or no camera, it's one more charge on the pile.

[Purple]

Could you expand on your use of the verb "to backdoor?"

Basically he means to say that if you make it mandatory for every gun to have a camera you are going to have to find some way of enforcing it. And this can easily be used to justify some sort of centralized registry thats there to keep track of who owns guns, something that americans are apparently pathologically terrified of.

Not sure why a registry would need to be involved. Something simple like: All guns made after 20XX must have a gun camera. Removing or deliberately disabling the camera is a crime, guns made after 20XX without a camera are illegal. If you get caught doing bad stuff and have a gun made after 20XX with a disabled camera or no camera, it's one more charge on the pile.

I newer said it did. But it could be used to justify a database. And that's enough for some people apparently. I don't quite get what the whole hostility toward registering guns is anyway.

[LaCroix]

I don't quite get what the whole hostility toward registering guns is anyway.

Standard response: Because if invading nazis/communists/islamists/ or the liberals government have a list who owns what weapons, they could disarm the public at will and create a tyranny, destroying the only nation in the world that is a free democracy. (Under god.)

Stupid beyond belief, but that's what decades of indoctrination do to you.

[TheFeniX]

Could you expand on your use of the verb "to backdoor?"

We're talking about technology that can be used to send information about the firearm wirelessly to a database. The camera in of itself isn't a big deal, but the technology behind the rest of it would basically pass a registry without being called one.

Standard response: Because if invading nazis/communists/islamists/ or the liberals government have a list who owns what weapons, they could disarm the public at will and create a tyranny, destroying the only nation in the world that is a free democracy. (Under god.)

Stupid beyond belief, but that's what decades of indoctrination do to you.

It's totally true that registrations haven't been used in multiple countries to disarm the populace. You figured it out, we're all "god and guns" nuts. Here's one: I don't like the government spending millions of dollars robbing people when registries do jack-shit to fight crime when the system is defeated by a $0.99 file purchased at any hardware store. All so they can placate morons like you who think you know something.

Other than that: what fucking business does the government (or anyone) have knowing what property I own when taxes/debt aren't involved?

[Elheru Aran]

Other than that: what fucking business does the government (or anyone) have knowing what property I own when taxes/debt aren't involved?

Language aside, I would like to point out that this is the more reasonable argument against registration of privately owned firearms. There does have to be a distinct line between what knowledge the government can have of your life and what you may want to keep, well, private. Certain possessions are large and prominent enough that they fall into the government's purvey-- property and vehicles, for example.

I wonder though, has anybody ever tried permitting citizens to own firearms more or less freely... but mandating that they take a free course that trains them in firearms safety and sign a record that they have passed said course? I suppose something along those lines has been proposed at some point and failed the courts?

[TheFeniX]

Language aside, I would like to point out that this is the more reasonable argument against registration of privately owned firearms. There does have to be a distinct line between what knowledge the government can have of your life and what you may want to keep, well, private. Certain possessions are large and prominent enough that they fall into the government's purvey-- property and vehicles, for example.

I don't think it's a bad idea to posit that the vast majority of new cars will be operated on public roads for their primary use. The government and dealerships have a pretty big incentive to make sure they know who is driving what for liability issues.

Homes are almost solely about taxes. I'm sure there's a way you could buy something like a double-wide and put it into storage, but there's no legitimate reason I can see to buy one without informing the government because it's considered an improvement to property, thus increasing the tax value of your land. So they obviously want their cut and refusing to inform them about it is illegal.

Guns fall into neither category, so it's not a huge leap to understand why people don't want the government knowing what you own.

I wonder though, has anybody ever tried permitting citizens to own firearms more or less freely... but mandating that they take a free course that trains them in firearms safety and sign a record that they have passed said course? I suppose something along those lines has been proposed at some point and failed the courts?

Firearms are stupidly easy to operate safely. There's 4 basic rules and if you follow them, it's almost impossible to kill someone unintentionally with a firearm. Aside from yelling that at people, you should really be shown how to check a gun to see if it's loaded and (for some reason some people need to be told this) be told it's not a good idea to leave it laying around if you have kids.

Most guns I've bought already come with a safety and operating manual, like all quality products do. Honestly, you could make a DVD that covers basic firearm handling and safety, sell it with all guns sold, both new and used, and require gun sellers to inform people it would be a really good idea to watch this video a few times a year, even their kids as well. You could make them watch the important bits while the background check is done, because it would be that short.

It would probably do a lot more good than one class and would cost a whole lot less. Gun safety is a lot like workplace safety training. Accidents happen because people get lazy. They remember all their training, but ignore it because they "know better." They've been doing this for years and have it all figured out. At least in the workforce side of things, you can lower accidents a lot more by having small safety meetings, but only dealing with large ones maybe once a year.

At work, we do tailgate safety meetings before we start work at every jobsite. The purpose isn't to inform me that "Texas is Hot: don't stroke out" or "Rattlesnakes can kill you, so watch for them" but to remind me of training I've already had. To get me thinking of safety. Otherwise, I'll just get out of the truck and start working because my job is boring as shit. That's when people get hurt.

Gun safety is the same thing. You don't need a class to inform you on how to operate a gun safely, I can explain everything in 5 minutes, maybe 10. The issue is making sure people remember it and practice it every time they want to pick up a gun.

[Simon_Jester]

Could you expand on your use of the verb "to backdoor?"

We're talking about technology that can be used to send information about the firearm wirelessly to a database. The camera in of itself isn't a big deal, but the technology behind the rest of it would basically pass a registry without being called one.

Why would you need a wireless transmitter? The purpose of this system is pretty much purely to provide evidence that can exonerate the shooter in self-defense cases, and/or provide evidence of premeditation if the shooter is guilty.

This isn't, or doesn't need to be, a locator beacon.

Stupid beyond belief, but that's what decades of indoctrination do to you.

It's totally true that registrations haven't been used in multiple countries to disarm the populace. You figured it out, we're all "god and guns" nuts. Here's one: I don't like the government spending millions of dollars robbing people...[/quote]Since gun collections can have costs running into the thousands of dollars (or tens of thousands), and often include historical artifacts (i.e. WWI and WWII-era weapons), I can see the argument right there. I mean, there are something on the order of* a hundred million guns in America, the market value of each individual gun is upwards of a hundred dollars on average unless I'm badly mistaken... just multiplying, we're looking at tens of billions of dollars of private property.

That's a lot of stuff, just measured in terms of its cash value to its owners, and there are already people (at least one on this very forum) who actually SAY they favor using a registration system to later go in and confiscate the guns.

I mean, there'd be a pretty respectable uproar if somebody were talking about registering all the jewelry in America and there were a history of various nations using jewelry registries to later come in and collect all jewelry so it could be secreted in state vaults.

And that's without anything like a constitutional right to wear jewelry.
_______________________________

*As in, more than a hundred million, less than a billion.

[LaCroix]

Standard response: Because if invading nazis/communists/islamists/ or the liberals government have a list who owns what weapons, they could disarm the public at will and create a tyranny, destroying the only nation in the world that is a free democracy. (Under god.)

Stupid beyond belief, but that's what decades of indoctrination do to you.

It's totally true that registrations haven't been used in multiple countries to disarm the populace. You figured it out, we're all "god and guns" nuts. Here's one: I don't like the government spending millions of dollars robbing people when registries do jack-shit to fight crime when the system is defeated by a $0.99 file purchased at any hardware store. All so they can placate morons like you who think you know something.

It's "stupid beyond belief" because nobody should believe that anyone could invade the US in the first place, and should know that the government certainly won't remove gun ownership. Not with the second amendment, and not with all the court cases defending it. But people always claim that the moment that gun registries are implemented, the guns will be sure be gone some day, if not right the day after the files are complete. Because tyranny.

They keep harping about how Nazis confiscated guns (which isn't true, they actually lessened the strict gun control that was imposed on Germany in the Versailles contract), and therefore, every government in the world will remove guns... And only private guns stand between democracy and a dictatorship, yada,yada.

Please provide me how the fact of registering a gun will prevent you from using it to stop a burglar in your home. Or stop you defending yourself in the street? It doesn't. Not at all.

But what it does is making police actions safer for police and citicens - police doesn't have to use lethal force for every entry to a home, because they know if there are guns to be expected. Police doesn't have to assume the driver of a vehicle will be armed, because they can look up if he does posess firearms. They can go into most encounters with a resonable expectation of not getting shot, which makes them less confrontational and more polite. No need to shoot or taser at the slightest provocation. Makes life a lot safer for the average civilian in countries with gun registration.

Also, if somebody is having grave mental issues that make them unsafe to own a gun, we know if they have some.

Everyone knows that a registry doesn't do away with illegal guns - and it's not supposed to, apart from the fact that it makes it harder for new guns to become illegal, apart from theft - going on a buying spree and handing them over to gang members doesn't work too well if you need to report them stolen. Or when a gun shows up at a crime scene that is registered to you but was never reported stolen. That really hampers the black market.

Overall, a registry has tons of positive outcomes, and only one negative - "I don't like the gub'ment to know about my guns"

Here's another one for you - I own guns, my brothers do own guns. Most of my friends own guns - and all these guns are all registered. And guess what, nobody is bothering us about them, apart from a once every few years (sheduled up front by a call asking us when it would be the most convenient time for them to show up) visit to see if they are still there and stroed according to rules and regulations (which usually results in a quick peek at them in the locker, followed by a long chat with the police officer about which is our favourite and stuff), and no one is taking them away. When we buy some, the dealer enters the number, our name and adress into the registry. When we buy sell them privately, we simply inform a local arms dealer that the gun with that registrytion number now belongs to X, and he changes the registry entry.

Other than that: what fucking business does the government (or anyone) have knowing what property I own when taxes/debt aren't involved?

That might be an argument, but... well, the government has the right to know that you own a car, doesn't it? They even mandate having license plates on it so every police officer is able to identify that car on sight. But that is cool, because, yeah, taxes...

But the right to know that somebody owns a gun - no way - that would infringe your freedom... Maybe they should adopt a 1 cent/gun annual tax so they have the right to demand registration? would you be cool with that?

[TimothyC]

That might be an argument, but... well, the government has the right to know that you own a car, doesn't it? They even mandate having license plates on it so every police officer is able to identify that car on sight. But that is cool, because, yeah, taxes...

No, they actually don't have a right to know if I own a car. They only have a right to know if I own a car I am driving on public roads. If I don't drive the vehicle for some reason (say it is a non-functioning antique), I don't have to pay to register it.

Yeah, not the situation that you were thinking of but your analogy was flawed.

It's totally true that registrations haven't been used in multiple countries to disarm the populace.

New Orleans after Katrina. New York (state) after the SAFE Act. Heck, NYC in 1991 after saying that the 1960s registration would not be used to confiscate weapons that were registered. That is why gun owners in the US don't trust registration schemes, because they have been used to confiscate weapons that those in political power don't want the general public to have.

[LaCroix]

I stand corrected.

[TheFeniX]

Please provide me how the fact of registering a gun will prevent you from using it to stop a burglar in your home. Or stop you defending yourself in the street? It doesn't. Not at all.

I would if I had ever made that assertion.

But what it does is making police actions safer for police and citicens - police doesn't have to use lethal force for every entry to a home, because they know if there are guns to be expected. Police doesn't have to assume the driver of a vehicle will be armed, because they can look up if he does posess firearms. They can go into most encounters with a resonable expectation of not getting shot, which makes them less confrontational and more polite. No need to shoot or taser at the slightest provocation. Makes life a lot safer for the average civilian in countries with gun registration.

What fantasy land do you live in? Convicted felons, right now, in the US are legally prohibited from owning firearms. You really think a cop is going to look up a guy's plate and be "well, he's a felon, so he obviously doesn't own a gun" anymore than he would say "this guy doesn't have any guns registered to him, so he's obviously unarmed."? U.S. cops don't bother with that info anyways: they send in the SWAT team as a matter of course, even though their biggest danger seems to be shooting each other, then shooting 12-year-olds in retaliation.

Also, if somebody is having grave mental issues that make them unsafe to own a gun, we know if they have some.

Having "grave mental issues" already makes it illegal to own a gun in the U.S. And you only know what guns they've purchased legally.

Everyone knows that a registry doesn't do away with illegal guns - and it's not supposed to, apart from the fact that it makes it harder for new guns to become illegal, apart from theft - going on a buying spree and handing them over to gang members doesn't work too well if you need to report them stolen. Or when a gun shows up at a crime scene that is registered to you but was never reported stolen. That really hampers the black market.

You know a whole shitload of crime guns come from legal FFLs selling guns to known criminals and/or bypassing it through straw buys? Both of which are felonies in of themselves. Or the ATF just sells guns to felons and foreign nationals themselves, because why the fuck not? Guns stolen from private individuals actually make up a small percentage of guns used in crimes, for a few reasons I won't bothering going into.

Here's another one for you - I own guns, my brothers do own guns. Most of my friends own guns - and all these guns are all registered. And guess what, nobody is bothering us about them, apart from a once every few years (sheduled up front by a call asking us when it would be the most convenient time for them to show up) visit to see if they are still there and stroed according to rules and regulations (which usually results in a quick peek at them in the locker, followed by a long chat with the police officer about which is our favourite and stuff), and no one is taking them away. When we buy some, the dealer enters the number, our name and adress into the registry. When we buy sell them privately, we simply inform a local arms dealer that the gun with that registrytion number now belongs to X, and he changes the registry entry.

It's great you're cool with the government spending millions of dollars to search your homes so you can prove you aren't a criminal. All so your criminals can do the same thing U.S. ones do: file the serial number. Which at best requires a forensics lab to identify and gives them the information: "Yep, this gun was legally owned at some point" and at worst makes the gun completely untrackable.

[LaCroix]

And you are argumenting my point better than I have done, completely missing it.

What fantasy land do you live in? Convicted felons, right now, in the US are legally prohibited from owning firearms. You really think a cop is going to look up a guy's plate and be "well, he's a felon, so he obviously doesn't own a gun" anymore than he would say "this guy doesn't have any guns registered to him, so he's obviously unarmed."? U.S. cops don't bother with that info anyways: they send in the SWAT team as a matter of course, even though their biggest danger seems to be shooting each other, then shooting 12-year-olds in retaliation.

Austria, the ~14th most armed land in the world... 30.4 guns per 100 inhabitants.

And you're talking bullshit - the car of a felon woul also be stopped with some care here. But the car of a non-felon, which are the huge majority of stopped cars? The cops are completely cool about that - no screaming to show your hands, no unlocking your gun, just in case, because they know to a very high degree of certainity if that person has firearms or not, which you never know in the US, because no registry.

Having "grave mental issues" already makes it illegal to own a gun in the U.S. And you only know what guns they've purchased legally.

Yeah, but we KNOW if they have any guns around we need to take away after they are diagnosed, and they CAN'T buy any guns anywhere, because the dealer will have to register these guns to them.

You know a whole shitload of crime guns come from legal FFLs selling guns to known criminals and/or bypassing it through straw buys? Both of which are felonies in of themselves. Or the ATF just sells guns to felons and foreign nationals themselves, because why the fuck not? Guns stolen from private individuals actually make up a small percentage of guns used in crimes, for a few reasons I won't bothering going into.

*snip*

It's great you're cool with the government spending millions of dollars to search your homes so you can prove you aren't a criminal. All so your criminals can do the same thing U.S. ones do: file the serial number. Which at best requires a forensics lab to identify and gives them the information: "Yep, this gun was legally owned at some point" and at worst makes the gun completely untrackable.

That's EXACTLY why we do have a registry - the dealers HAVE to document every single sale of a gun, and register the gun to the new owner. Our dealers will not compromise on this, at all, because they will lose their business if they don't. So there is no way to have a "shitload" of guns go missing from legimate dealers without the culprit being behind bars shortly after. Guns may be stolen from private individuals, but that is mitigated by the fact that the law demands (if you don't have a cc permission) that your guns are always locked in a firearm safe that is bolted to the wall while not in use.) And that's why they check - to make sure you have the safe and use it, so your gun can't be stolen easily. Will guns be stolen? Yeah. But less. But you need to report it stolen, because you will get REAL trouble if you don't have it anymore and didn't report the theft - It will be asuumed you are trafficking guns (and really stupid about how to do it) if you don't report theft.

So apart from the occasionally stolen gun, we have almost completely stopped guns from going into black market. We're not that effective in stopping them from crossing the border, but it stays a rather rare problem. Armed crime is almost done by somebody legally owning a gun (shootings) or eastern european crime tourists (robberies).

We don't see the controls as intrusive - the same way we don't see roadside stops to check if we have a driving license or are drunk as intrusive. It's part of a social contract that keeps us safe.

[TheFeniX]

And you're talking bullshit - the car of a felon woul also be stopped with some care here. But the car of a non-felon, which are the huge majority of stopped cars? The cops are completely cool about that - no screaming to show your hands, no unlocking your gun, just in case, because they know to a very high degree of certainity if that person has firearms or not, which you never know in the US, because no registry.

So what, if they do own guns do the cops open with guns drawn?

Having "grave mental issues" already makes it illegal to own a gun in the U.S. And you only know what guns they've purchased legally.

Yeah, but we KNOW if they have any guns around we need to take away after they are diagnosed, and they CAN'T buy any guns anywhere, because the dealer will have to register these guns to them.

See below.

That's EXACTLY why we do have a registry - the dealers HAVE to document every single sale of a gun, and register the gun to the new owner. Our dealers will not compromise on this, at all, because they will lose their business if they don't.

Aside from the registration part: U.S. FFLs have to do the exact same thing, or they lose their business and go to jail as felons. Yet there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of FFLs who knowingly sell to felons or do straw-buys. They are licensed dealers who sell to felons, the DoJ knows about it, and instead of shutting them down, instead figures they'd get them to sell guns to criminals so they can kill U.S. cop and Mexican citizens. At least that's all that I can figure o the situation.

I'm not swimming in confidence.

So apart from the occasionally stolen gun, we have almost completely stopped guns from going into black market. We're not that effective in stopping them from crossing the border, but it stays a rather rare problem. Armed crime is almost done by somebody legally owning a gun (shootings) or eastern european crime tourists (robberies).

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Austria also has a low incidents of violent crime not involving firearms. They usually go hand in hand.

We don't see the controls as intrusive

See, I do. And if I was an asshole, I'd claim you were indoctrinated to believe otherwise. Instead I know that countries aren't interchangable and the U.S. has many other problems, aside from legal gun ownership, that leads to most of the violent crime we deal with.

[LaCroix]

So what, if they do own guns do the cops open with guns drawn?

No. The might *gasp* loosen the gun in the holster. Cops drawing the gun without a visible threat present is illegal and will get them in serious trouble. As told in various threads, we hold our cops at very high standards of conduct concerning their weapons.

To explain, our registration is three-step - everyone older than 18 can have non-automatic long arms.

You need a permit (that is very easy to get, fill a simple form, have a quick check at the doctor that you are not homicidal, and have a few hours of training) or hunting license* (which is much, much harder to get - lots of theory to learn) for handguns or semi-automatic rifles.

Third level is a carry permit, for which you need to provide a good reason to get (for example owning a business with a cash register, or having recieved threats), and will require some mandatory training, but is obtainable.

Less than 5% of housholds do have a carry permit holder, so the risk of having somebody having a loaded gun in reach is very small for most traffic encounters.

*A hunting license obviously includes a carry permit, which is why it is much harder to get (on top of having to learn the hunting laws and regulation.

Aside from the registration part: U.S. FFLs have to do the exact same thing, or they lose their business and go to jail as felons. Yet there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of FFLs who knowingly sell to felons or do straw-buys. They are licensed dealers who sell to felons, the DoJ knows about it, and instead of shutting them down, instead figures they'd get them to sell guns to criminals so they can kill U.S. cop and Mexican citizens. At least that's all that I can figure o the situation.
I'm not swimming in confidence.

They have to register every gun that comes in. (Because their seller needs to register them too, and all imports are registered, as well.) And they need to register whom they sold the gun to. There is no wiggle room for straw buys, and our gun sellers and gun associations are very keen on keeping it that way to prevent a tightening of the law. I've seen lot's of cases, personally, where the seller politely told the customers he is not going to sell them a gun because the conditions aren't met.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Austria also has a low incidents of violent crime not involving firearms. They usually go hand in hand.

It's 0.9/100000 (US is 4.7, France 1.0, Germany 0. for homicide, with about 30% by gun (US 66%, France 10%, Germany 26%, ), and ~50/100000 (US ~240, France 300, Germany 630) for assault/battery.

I must say that our battery numbers are most likely highly underreported, as we do really brawl a lot, but we rarely do report something that 'only' involved exchanging punches unless somebody was critically injured.

We don't see the controls as intrusive

See, I do. And if I was an asshole, I'd claim you were indoctrinated to believe otherwise. Instead I know that countries aren't interchangable and the U.S. has many other problems, aside from legal gun ownership, that leads to most of the violent crime we deal with.

Yeah, I know. I only ment it to explain why we don't have a problem with it. We don't see it as "prooving you aren't a criminal", but as an inspection of regulations about gun storage. To us, this is at the same level to a restaurant having to get checked for following sanitation rules, or needing to have your car inspected once a year to make sure it's still roadworthy.

[Beowulf]

Note: I just realized Duchess worked out a suggestion that gets around the "turn the camera on fast" issue: have the gun camera turn on whenever the safety's off.

Not all guns have safeties, and some safeties are mounted on the slide, which poses problems running wiring down into the frame.

[Zixinus]

The camera could also turn on by putting a pressure sensor on the grip somewhere (preferably in a place that is always touched when handled but not when still in the holster). So the camera would turn on whenever the officer actually takes out his gun.

[TheFeniX]

Less than 5% of housholds do have a carry permit holder, so the risk of having somebody having a loaded gun in reach is very small for most traffic encounters.

This likely holds more to low incidents of violent crime in general rather than the reliance on registration. People who can afford to spend thousands of dollars on firearms are statistically some of the least likely to be violent criminals.

I would bet good money Austria could do away with the registrations on private ownership, while keeping up enforcement on the "head-end" WRT your dealers, with no effect on your guncrime. The U.S. has this problem where any jackass can apply to become an FFL. Even though I bet a majority of them are good people just trying to sell some guns to make a living, the fact of the matter is: people like them are letting guns get into the hands of felons.

They have to register every gun that comes in. (Because their seller needs to register them too, and all imports are registered, as well.) And they need to register whom they sold the gun to. There is no wiggle room for straw buys, and our gun sellers and gun associations are very keen on keeping it that way to prevent a tightening of the law. I've seen lot's of cases, personally, where the seller politely told the customers he is not going to sell them a gun because the conditions aren't met.

These are licensed FFLs, that are required to report "thefts," that are leaking guns onto the streets. Even if they had to register them, those registered serials numbers don't last long at all and would merely point them to the original FFL. Something of which happens now since retail sales are tracked by the government, for legal (but mostly tax) reasons.

Not to say gun thefts from private individuals should be ignored, but they are not the problem with U.S. guns. I've wondered for years how "registered" gun dealers who knowingly sell to criminals could continue to operate when the ATF knows about how bad it is, but then Fast and Furious pretty much explained the whole thing: they have no fucking idea what they're doing.

The average U.S. "gun nut" does a better job keeping track of their weapons than the ATF does. And they/we tend to get far fewer people killed in the process.

[LaCroix]

Less than 5% of housholds do have a carry permit holder, so the risk of having somebody having a loaded gun in reach is very small for most traffic encounters.

This likely holds more to low incidents of violent crime in general rather than the reliance on registration. People who can afford to spend thousands of dollars on firearms are statistically some of the least likely to be violent criminals.

I would bet good money Austria could do away with the registrations on private ownership, while keeping up enforcement on the "head-end" WRT your dealers, with no effect on your guncrime. The U.S. has this problem where any jackass can apply to become an FFL. Even though I bet a majority of them are good people just trying to sell some guns to make a living, the fact of the matter is: people like them are letting guns get into the hands of felons.

They have to register every gun that comes in. (Because their seller needs to register them too, and all imports are registered, as well.) And they need to register whom they sold the gun to. There is no wiggle room for straw buys, and our gun sellers and gun associations are very keen on keeping it that way to prevent a tightening of the law. I've seen lot's of cases, personally, where the seller politely told the customers he is not going to sell them a gun because the conditions aren't met.

These are licensed FFLs, that are required to report "thefts," that are leaking guns onto the streets. Even if they had to register them, those registered serials numbers don't last long at all and would merely point them to the original FFL. Something of which happens now since retail sales are tracked by the government, for legal (but mostly tax) reasons.

Not to say gun thefts from private individuals should be ignored, but they are not the problem with U.S. guns. I've wondered for years how "registered" gun dealers who knowingly sell to criminals could continue to operate when the ATF knows about how bad it is, but then Fast and Furious pretty much explained the whole thing: they have no fucking idea what they're doing.

The average U.S. "gun nut" does a better job keeping track of their weapons than the ATF does. And they/we tend to get far fewer people killed in the process.

That is indeed a problem - the issue of illegal guns stands and falls with the dealers' cooperation. Here, there is a lot of red tape to fill to get and keep the license to sell guns and ammo, and one of it is "Reliability" - having a sparkly clean slate. It basically boils down to a sudden death rule - the first time they break a rule, it is gone. This also extends to other things - paying bills, wages, generally being an upstanding citizen. Even a big enough ticket for speeding might be enough to feel the pointy end of the stick.

Also, our police is quite competent in checking these books (it's in their interest to keep guns from seeping into the streets), and the dealers are self-policing to keep their business.

But if the private gun registry would cease, you would lose the most important part of the paper trail.

It's precisely the fact that every gun can be tracked to a certain person that makes the system so effective - the cops do these random checks (mostly on people that are new buys) in order to check if the gun is there, and if the regulations for storage are followed. But if the person the gun allegedly had been sold to doesn't exist or claims to never have owned a gun, you know something is fishy. Either the dealer sold with to someone using a fake id, or forged the book, or the buyer has trafficked his gun. This is even worse for handguns, which have to be registered in a passport like document (the '2nd degree' permit - weapon passport) on sale. Either way, the cops will come down on everyone involved like a ton of bricks, and the leak will be found and plugged.