Canada bans AR15's, 1500 other firearms

I didn't make that assertion.....the burden of proof is on the person(s) who makes such a claim. I don't do other people's homework. If they can't produce the goods, at least they should have the intellectual courage to admit they're wrong.

 

As trump would say, "wrong".

 

I'm not wrong. I am just disinterested in running your errands.

 

To repeat:


Vote red people!

 

Fortunately, our rights are not limited by your perception of "need".

 

Unsupportable nonsense -- responsible gun ownership is not in any way predicated ion the state knowing who owns each of the guns in its jurisdiction.

 

An AR15 in 450 Bushmaster is an AR15.

 

The AR10 has a noticeably longer mag well - if you know what to look for, they are easy to tell the difference.

 

And, like the zealots in the bible belt, you believe something you cannot demonstrate to be true.

 

I can support my argument by saying that gun registration would reduce the number of guns on the black market. How can you support your argument?

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this post hoc fallacy, it remains a post-hoc fallacy.
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the laws you cite and the effect you claim.

 

This does not in anyway demonstrate a necessary link between gun registration and responsible gun ownership.
You want us to believe the only way to responsibly own a gun is for the state to have record of it - which, as noted before is unsupportable nonsense.

 

Again nothing to do with the actual point, not interested in semantics.

 

You said the AR15 and AR10 are "indistinguishable".
They aren't.

 

So do we. The "rule" is, don't infringe on our right to own one.

 

Its still confiscation and you are still wrong about government not wanting to take them.

 

Where has registration been shown to reduce crime?

 

Like your hero the Orange Dump, your response is just a bluff...…"wrong" meaning what, Canada is America regarding gun laws? Jeez, hit the library, my man. Please!

 

If the ban on certain kinds of firearms does not include the confiscation of said firearms, how will the ban reduce the rate of mass shootings?

 

Sorry to inform you that you can't bluff your way out of this....the chronology of the posts won't let you. YOU made a statement, I challenged you to provide proof of your statement's validity. The burden of proof is on you to provide, not to tell others to do a random such to do so. Ask any high school debate teacher, and they'll tell you the same. So if you can't put up, at least have the maturity to admit you're wrong, and spare the readers more bluff and bluster, dodges and lies.

 

The ATF has demonstrated otherwise. Through their firearms trace program, they have proven that registration does not reduce the number of firearms on the black market.

https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/cawebsite17183919pdf/download

In the cited point of time, the latest year for which data is available, the ATF was asked by the state of California to trace some forty one thousand five hundred and twenty seven firearms that were found in the possession of criminal individuals within the state.

Of that amount, the ATF determined, through running the serial numbers on the firearms, that nearly half of the total amount, some forty two percent, were originally sold within the state of California itself.

The state of California requires the registration of all firearms held by private individuals without exception. No firearm can be purchased without a background check, and no firearm can be sold without a background check, not even by private individuals. All firearm purchases, regardless of commercial or a private nature, are subject to permits to purchase, and permits to own. All firearms must be stored in a secure manner, and are subject to reporting requirements if they are lost of stolen.

Despite all of these requirements and countless others, nearly half of the firearms found in possession of criminal individuals, were acquired within the state of California itself. The second highest amount, a mere five percent, were traced back to the state of Arizona, where there are no such requirements on the private sale of firearms.

If these firearm-related restrictions truly worked as their supporters claim, the number of illegally acquired firearms in the state of California would not even exceed one percent of the total number. It would not be physically possible for the amount to reach forty two percent of the total number.

 

I'm not wrong. Why would I say that I am? If you choose not to believe me that is fine. I don't care at all.

 

There is never a guarantee given that with even a total ban on firearms, that nobody would be shot be a criminal holding on to a weapon. This is simply about doing something about the pointless violence of civilians against each other. You got to wonder, if your neighbor is able to sell his weapons to a potential terrorist, without anybody being able to prevent that in any way.... than what kind of society is it that you're in. With regulations are illegal sales, people can be held accountable in a rather simple way. The way you can go about, like what is the use.... well heck... why not legalize drugs all together, let the cocaine flow free. People have been using it despite it being illegal anyways. To even, what's the point of law enforcement in general if people keep breaking the law?Or is it, no... lets do what we can.

 

What could be done to prevent said hypothetical neighbor from physically carrying out such an act? Background and registration requirements? Such is already in place in the state of California, and as has been shown, such requirements are still failing. So what could be done that would prevent such?

Meaning constitutional rights held by the people, to be used for legal and legitimate purposes, should be restricted in an effort to try and combat the criminal element, which is devoid of those same constitutional rights?