New Orleans Shooting Injures 10 People Near French Quarter

You are the one that is making the claim that restrictions on the law abiding will not do something to reduce gun-related violence.

Those first world nations with more restrictive gun laws and lower rates of gun violence are my source.

What is yours?

 

Don't you know that people steal guns from cops? So what is a thief supposed to do, go register the gun he just stole from a cop?

 

How does voter ID infringe on voting rights?

 

It’s an invasion of privacy, further violates private property rights, and invariably leads to confiscation.

As others have stated, it serves no practical purpose and historically is the final step before confiscation. Owners have always been skeptical of registration, even when progressives claimed they didn’t want to take guns. Now that full on banning and confiscation are stated mainstream progressive goals, it’s a non starter. If you wanted registration to fly, you should have rode herd more effectively on the likes of Beto etc. and on red flag laws. You’ve (not you personally, progressives in general) overplayed your hand.

Also, registration would make purchase and transfer of firearms more difficult for citizens. Time is of more value to me than money in some cases. Creating hassle is infringement.

 

Tog-6 just spams every gun shooting threads with the same points with no sources, so you'll be wasting your time even asking. He will also clip your posts when he has no answers and will try and side track you until you get fed up with his trolling.

 

"Creating hassle is infringement."! Try telling that when you refuse to send in tax returns or refuse to get car insurance or refuse to get a license to drive.

Registration of all gun transfers will significantly reduce the number of guns on the black market

 

Registration would cause hundreds of millions of guns to enter the black market via civil disobedience noncompliance.

 

Why would it?

 

Because people aren’t fans. Why are people not complying with current laws in certain states? Not everyone is the Ovis aries you want them to be.

 

People are not fans of paying taxes either. Give away or sell your gun without registration and it's used in a crime, then you should be held partly responsible for that crime and charged as such

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but a large percentage of gun owners are on to the scheme. We will never trust you not to abuse what you market as so benign. I’m opposed from the personal property angle. It’s none of your business if I give a gun to a relative or neighbor. Or sell one to a neighbor. Or loan one to someone. Or barter with one. If I can give my neighbor a plate of toffee and fudge at Christmas I should be able to give them a gun.

It’s all unrealistic perceived safety in exchange for freedom on several levels. There are still many who will take the freedom with a side of risk all day and twice on Sunday.

And yes, the current tax code is bizarre infringement. It unnecessarily wastes much of my time.

 

Noooo... I am stating the obvious - that you cannot support your position with anything rational or reasoned.
Specifically, you cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rate on gun-related murder
As such, the graph you presented means nothing.
Why do you not recognize this?

 

You are fully aware of the fact that none of this is true.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

It doesn’t.

 

Transfer of firearms is what is the issue — it needs to be more difficult.
We have federal and state background checks for the original purchase but no safety measures for secondhand sales.
How is registration more of a privacy concern than the initial background check?

 

The obvious is that nation wide restrictions or gun laws limit gun violence.
See Australia for a more recent example.

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this post hoc fallacy, it remains a post hoc fallacy.

Unless you can demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rate on gun-related murder, your repetition of these numbers mean nothing.

Why do you not recognize this?

 

Ok, then they mean nothing — to you. They are substantive to me, thus my original opinion will remain.
I grow tired of you just discrediting item after item without even discussing it and definitely not refuting it.

You just copy pasting the same basic post over and over again with zero sources or facts will never change a single persons mind.
Cheers

 

Or anyone else with a basic understand of the rules of logic - that you find a post hoc fallacy substantive and compelling demonstrates you do not fall into that set of people; no one in that set of people will have their mind changed by your repetitious fallacies.

Why do you not recognize this?

 

Feel free to refute anything with a source showing how and why it is incorrect.
Your words and opinions mean nothing.

 

I did - you present a post hoc fallacy.
Do you know what that means?

To someone obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - sure.

 

But you can’t make it difficult. If I want to supply a gun to be used in a crime, I just hand it to a criminal. Can’t stop that. Only harmless people will follow the law.

A background check today does not leave a permanent record of who owns a firearm. Current law forbids it. The government does not (isn’t supposed to) know what I own.

And the issue is criminal behavior. Murderers. Not transfer of personal props.

 

By now, let me know when you can post a source or study — anything besides parroting and spamming post hoc fallacy.
If not don’t bother to continue, you are doing nothing but wasting your time.

 

No need - the fact you rest on a post hoc fallacy denudes your argument of any degree of validity.

Indeed - because you are obstinately or intolerantly devoted to your opinions and prejudices.