Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
and yet you oppose a registry even though it would eliminate 2 of 3 avenuesWhere do criminals get their guns....
Checking the Logic of Background Checks
Three sources accounted for almost nine out of 10 crime guns: "friends or family" (40 percent), "the street" (38 percent), and theft (10 percent). It is hard to see how any notional background check requirement, even one applying to all private transfers, can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on these sources. As usual with gun control, the attempt to enforce such a requirement would impose costs and uncertain legal risks on law-abiding gun owners while leaving criminals free to go about their business.
...
Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?
I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.
Agree. I call it Speculation Fallacy, more formally known as Slippery Slope.
That's exactly Obama's argument with his "gun control measures". They think these measures will work just in case someone with bad intentions is trying to get one.
I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.
Agree. I call it Speculation Fallacy, more formally known as Slippery Slope.
That's exactly Obama's argument with his "gun control measures". They think these measures will work just in case someone with bad intentions is trying to get one.
Say what, Willis?
You are wrong....registered guns do nothing to solve crimes......
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....
The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government.
According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.
The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.
So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.
There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.
Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.
I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.
Agree. I call it Speculation Fallacy, more formally known as Slippery Slope.
That's exactly Obama's argument with his "gun control measures". They think these measures will work just in case someone with bad intentions is trying to get one.
Say what, Willis?
Never mind. Ya can't argue with stupid.
and yet you oppose a registry even though it would eliminate 2 of 3 avenuesWhere do criminals get their guns....
Checking the Logic of Background Checks
Three sources accounted for almost nine out of 10 crime guns: "friends or family" (40 percent), "the street" (38 percent), and theft (10 percent). It is hard to see how any notional background check requirement, even one applying to all private transfers, can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on these sources. As usual with gun control, the attempt to enforce such a requirement would impose costs and uncertain legal risks on law-abiding gun owners while leaving criminals free to go about their business.
Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...
Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...
No, it isn't. It's about collecting information so that one can use that information to subsequently take action against people who betray the trust placed in them when they chose to exercise their right to own a firearm.
And no, owners of black market guns are not going to register their guns. But by having stricter rules that allow for the easy tracking and verifying the flow of any given gun from lawful seller/owner to lawful owner/sell to, eventually, an unlawful owner tells us who is responsible for failing to exercise adequate control over their weapon.
The problem is not that lawful users obtain guns; it's that unlawful users do. The only way to find out what ostensibly lawful consumers are/have lapsed in their duty to make sure nobody "untoward" gets hold of their gun, is to require folks to document/attest to how and when they came by their gun and how and when they yielded/lost possession of it.
For example, if you buy a couple guns and register both of them, great. Enjoy your weapons. If one of them gets stolen and you don't report the theft, there comes about the first "building block" in a plausible argument that you (1) were negligent in exercising due care over securing your weapon, (2) conspired to allow your gun to be stolen. Now one theft is not really indicative of either, so the presumption of innocence still accrues to you. In time, you replace you stolen weapon and buy several others and register them. If they don't keep getting stolen, there's little cause to think you are routinely negligent or willfully part of a supply chain for getting legal guns into the hands of illegal users.
Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...
No, it isn't. It's about collecting information so that one can use that information to subsequently take action against people who betray the trust placed in them when they chose to exercise their right to own a firearm.
And no, owners of black market guns are not going to register their guns. But by having stricter rules that allow for the easy tracking and verifying the flow of any given gun from lawful seller/owner to lawful owner/sell to, eventually, an unlawful owner tells us who is responsible for failing to exercise adequate control over their weapon.
The problem is not that lawful users obtain guns; it's that unlawful users do. The only way to find out what ostensibly lawful consumers are/have lapsed in their duty to make sure nobody "untoward" gets hold of their gun, is to require folks to document/attest to how and when they came by their gun and how and when they yielded/lost possession of it.
For example, if you buy a couple guns and register both of them, great. Enjoy your weapons. If one of them gets stolen and you don't report the theft, there comes about the first "building block" in a plausible argument that you (1) were negligent in exercising due care over securing your weapon, (2) conspired to allow your gun to be stolen. Now one theft is not really indicative of either, so the presumption of innocence still accrues to you. In time, you replace you stolen weapon and buy several others and register them. If they don't keep getting stolen, there's little cause to think you are routinely negligent or willfully part of a supply chain for getting legal guns into the hands of illegal users.
You are a silly person......registration is not needed to do anything you just suggested and in fact is not being used to stop criminals now........the gun traffickers that have been captured, that I have posted about....have all been captured by police using snitches and undercover buys..........not one was done by following a registered gun.
and losing a gun or having a gun stolen does not make you a criminal.....And if they catch multiple criminals who all say yeah...that guy gave me the gun....there was no need to register guns to find that out...is there.....and that is how all other crimes are solved...actual police work.....
the absolute only reason to register guns is to eventually ban them....as happened in Britain, Germany, Australia, California, New York......
.there is a history that shows what registration allows......and it always ends in confiscation.......
On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...
.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?
Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….
Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.
Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.
Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.
Guns are not cars….guns keep the powerful in check. That is why dictators never allow their people to have guns.
That's funny, since in about 4300 other threads car fatalities are constantly coming up as a false comparison.
Now suddenly --- not so convenient.
The anti gun extremists started comparing guns to cars with that stupid meme about gun deaths and car deaths….you guys started it and now are complaining when it is used to show how dumb your ideas are.
On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...
.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?
Because registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.
Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California
So guns have been banned in New York and California, have they?
Try to buy an AR-15 in New York….or in California…..or a gun with a 15 round magazine…….one pistol I have……can't be sold in California……..
Mass public shootings in 2015…..4
I don't know if anyone does or does not believe that could happen. I do know that saying/thinking X should/should not be done because Y could happen is essentially the "just in case" line of argument, and it is fallacious.
Agree. I call it Speculation Fallacy, more formally known as Slippery Slope.
That's exactly Obama's argument with his "gun control measures". They think these measures will work just in case someone with bad intentions is trying to get one.
i don't think i said 'all'except of course to get and keep guns out of the black market and the hands of criminalsBecause registration leads to confiscation. There is no other reason for registration.
No, it won;t keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will help keep many guns out of the hands of criminals. That's all it is intended to do.
but there can be no doubt that a national gun registry would reduce the number of firearms available to criminals.
How would it reduce the number of guns available to criminals?
Has background checks and waiting periods reduced the availability for criminals to get guns?
This is a couple of years old (2013), but More than a million people failed background checks to buy guns during the past 14 years because of criminal records, drug use or mental health issues, according to FBI figures.
Criminal record top reason for U.S. gun-check rejection - CNN.com
Absolutely notThis is the REAL ISSUE behind Obama's federal background check scheme. In order to screen out people on no-fly lists, etc. ALL gun purchasers will have to be reported to the FBI, who will have to maintain a list of such purchases.
Does anyone seriously believe that such a list could not be used for nefarious political purposes? Have you forgotten Clinton's accessing confidential FBI files of political opponents or Obama's manipulation of IRS nonprofit applications?
Since none of this would have prevented any of the recent mass killings, what other purpose is being served?
On the news last night there was a man who said that he has never sold a gun without a back round check ever at a gun show...
.Really what is the problem with keeping track of guns sold, people still get their guns unless if they are on the list?
Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….
Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.
Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.
Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.
Cars are not guaranteed to you in the BOR. You do not have the right to own a car. Driving is a privilege.
Y'all just love to compare them to firearms.
The second amendment says nothing about maintaining a militia only that a militia is necessaryThe second amendment supports a gun registry to maintain a "Well regulated militia"
