|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 14 2013 06:04 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:50 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans! I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying. Well I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has the reading comprehension to understand what you meant and is just trying to manipulate what you said to make it sound like something else. edit: apparently I was giving him too much credit because On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. X_X oooook His point holds weight, it's just badly expressed. There is no logical reason to fear a gun registry in and of itself. There is a logical basis for fearing a gun ban. To fear a gun registry, one must first assume an impending gun ban. You can argue that the combination of gun ban + gun registry compounds to make it worth fearing a registry. Unfortunately the reality is that there is already a registry for most purchases in the past 20 years (background check records), it just isn't indexed. Thus a national gun registry would not significantly exacerbate a gun ban.
All information from background checks are destroyed within 24 hours as per federal law,
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet
http://factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/
|
On May 14 2013 06:04 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. Oh, I thought you were talking about a previous post. If you're talking about that post you really have crappy reading comprehension and are definitely straw manning me.
Me too, I guess when you run into wall when trying to attack your opponents position it's easier to just completely misrepresent what he said and attack that.
|
On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking.
You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic.
|
On May 14 2013 06:07 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans! I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying. Well I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has the reading comprehension to understand what you meant and is just trying to manipulate what you said to make it sound like something else. edit: apparently I was giving him too much credit because On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. X_X oooook His point holds weight, it's just badly expressed. There is no logical reason to fear a gun registry in and of itself. There is a logical basis for fearing a gun ban. To fear a gun registry, one must first assume an impending gun ban. You can argue that the combination of gun ban + gun registry compounds to make it worth fearing a registry. Unfortunately the reality is that there is already a registry for most purchases in the past 20 years (background check records), it just isn't indexed. Thus a national gun registry would not significantly exacerbate a gun ban. All information from background checks are destroyed within 24 hours as per federal law, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheethttp://factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/
Sale records are required to be kept locally for 20 years. Thus every sale that has a background check has a record.
|
On May 14 2013 06:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:04 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. Oh, I thought you were talking about a previous post. If you're talking about that post you really have crappy reading comprehension and are definitely straw manning me. Me too, I guess when you run into wall when trying to attack your opponents position it's easier to just completely misrepresent what he said and attack that.
If you don't believe a registry leads to gun bans--then there is nothing wrong with a registry.
You say to be leery because you believe a registry leads to gun bans.
Evidence shows that registry does not lead to gun bans.
ie--you have no evidence.
ie--you're just correlating.
|
On May 14 2013 06:09 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking. You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic.
fine, clear it up then.
Does a registry lead to a gun ban?
|
On May 14 2013 06:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:09 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:
Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally.
[quote]
Think your statement for a moment...
Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking. You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic. fine, clear it up then. Does a registry lead to a gun ban?o
As I said before, gun registries have been used to collect firearms from citizens. Therefore it would be wise to be leery of such a law. There I said the exact same thing. At no point did I intend to insinuate it ALWAYS leads to a ban and collection. Do you understand now?
|
On May 14 2013 06:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:09 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:
Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally.
[quote]
Think your statement for a moment...
Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking. You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic. fine, clear it up then. Does a registry lead to a gun ban?
No. The point of contention is whether or not a registry exacerbates a ban.
|
On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/
If I am following this back and forth correctly, the "argument" is that people should be aware/leery of gun registries. Nothing more, nothing less. Ok then...
May I ask what makes you think this is an argument? It seems more like a platitude. What are the consequences of the "argument"? What does saying "people should be aware of what may or may not happen with a gun registry" mean in concrete terms? That a gun registry should never be pursued? I'm having trouble understanding the concrete significance of "gun registries should make people wonder whether the government will confiscate guns" in the context of whether or not something like that should be considered in the US.
Would this be another way to frame that "argument":
"Gun registries, among an infinite number of other possibilities, could theoretically lead to a massive, blanket gun confiscation. Because of this possibility, we should not implement a gun registry, even though other evidence points in the direction of one long term result being reduced gun injury and death."
And if I've got it wrong or am misunderstanding something, feel free to point it out and explain it to me, instead of tossing out the good ol' "he made strawman" and leaving it at that.
|
On May 14 2013 06:13 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:09 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Correlation =/= causation.
Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people.
If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people.
Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking. You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic. fine, clear it up then. Does a registry lead to a gun ban?o As I said before, gun registries have been used to collect firearms from citizens. Therefore it would be wise to be leery of such a law. There I said the exact same thing. At no point did I intend to insinuate it ALWAYS leads to a ban and collection. Do you understand now?
It's a yes or no question. Evidence shows that registries does not lead to gun bans by the existence of countries that have it but don't ban guns.
being that that is the case, why would you believe a registry would lead to a gun ban when evidence shows the contrary?
You're argument is that there was some country out there somewhere on this planet that put a registry and had a gun ban afterwards. That is correlation implying causation--by definition.
|
On May 14 2013 06:13 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:09 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Correlation =/= causation.
Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people.
If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people.
Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking. You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic. fine, clear it up then. Does a registry lead to a gun ban? No. The point of contention is whether or not a registry exacerbates a ban.
if that were the case--then why argue against a registry when you should be arguing against the ban? if a ban is being put in place the existence or non-existence of a registry will simply mean people will hide already illegal things? It doesn't make guns less illegal after a ban and it doesn't make an argument for a gun ban stronger. why bring it up at all if you don't believe it causates anything?
|
On May 14 2013 06:09 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:07 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans! I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying. Well I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has the reading comprehension to understand what you meant and is just trying to manipulate what you said to make it sound like something else. edit: apparently I was giving him too much credit because On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. X_X oooook His point holds weight, it's just badly expressed. There is no logical reason to fear a gun registry in and of itself. There is a logical basis for fearing a gun ban. To fear a gun registry, one must first assume an impending gun ban. You can argue that the combination of gun ban + gun registry compounds to make it worth fearing a registry. Unfortunately the reality is that there is already a registry for most purchases in the past 20 years (background check records), it just isn't indexed. Thus a national gun registry would not significantly exacerbate a gun ban. All information from background checks are destroyed within 24 hours as per federal law, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheethttp://factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/ Sale records are required to be kept locally for 20 years. Thus every sale that has a background check has a record.
True but FFL dealers keeping sales records hardly equates to a gun registry where every gun will need to be reported to the registry when it becomes owned by another person. People fear a national registry because the government will be able to know where all guns are. Currently you can sell your gun and the government would be none the wiser of the new owner.
|
On May 14 2013 06:13 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:09 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Correlation =/= causation.
Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people.
If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people.
Both are wrong, both for the same reason. o Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking. You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic. fine, clear it up then. Does a registry lead to a gun ban?o As I said before, gun registries have been used to collect firearms from citizens. Therefore it would be wise to be leery of such a law. There I said the exact same thing. At no point did I intend to insinuate it ALWAYS leads to a ban and collection. Do you understand now?
You're wording as poorly as he is. A registry does not ever 'lead' to a gun ban unless you believe in the Illuminati and their Zionist empire which was responsible for the Boston bombing and fluoride in our water. What you are trying to argue is that it would make gun bans more effective. Which, again, while dependent on a gun ban happening, is still a valid argument to try to make.
Also, since it took me a minute to find it, source for my last post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473
|
On May 14 2013 06:20 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:09 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 06:07 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans! I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying. Well I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has the reading comprehension to understand what you meant and is just trying to manipulate what you said to make it sound like something else. edit: apparently I was giving him too much credit because On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. X_X oooook His point holds weight, it's just badly expressed. There is no logical reason to fear a gun registry in and of itself. There is a logical basis for fearing a gun ban. To fear a gun registry, one must first assume an impending gun ban. You can argue that the combination of gun ban + gun registry compounds to make it worth fearing a registry. Unfortunately the reality is that there is already a registry for most purchases in the past 20 years (background check records), it just isn't indexed. Thus a national gun registry would not significantly exacerbate a gun ban. All information from background checks are destroyed within 24 hours as per federal law, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheethttp://factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/ Sale records are required to be kept locally for 20 years. Thus every sale that has a background check has a record. True but FFL dealers keeping sales records hardly equates to a gun registry where every gun will need to be reported to the registry when it becomes owned by another person. People fear a national registry because the government will be able to know where all guns are. Currently you can sell your gun and the government would be none the wiser of the new owner.
Other than criminals, who does this help?
|
On May 14 2013 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:13 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:09 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:53 heliusx wrote:
[quote]o
Ok Kmillz, I regress. He just went full on straw man. :o What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking. You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic. fine, clear it up then. Does a registry lead to a gun ban?o As I said before, gun registries have been used to collect firearms from citizens. Therefore it would be wise to be leery of such a law. There I said the exact same thing. At no point did I intend to insinuate it ALWAYS leads to a ban and collection. Do you understand now? It's a yes or no question. Evidence shows that registries does not lead to gun bans by the existence of countries that have it but don't ban guns. being that that is the case, why would you believe a registry would lead to a gun ban when evidence shows the contrary? You're argument is that there was some country out there somewhere on this planet that put a registry and had a gun ban afterwards. That is correlation implying causation--by definition.
Please just stop posting. The stupidity of your posts are becoming overwhelming. And I am at a loss for how you could believe the things you are saying are logical.
|
I've been reading this for a week or so and I want to add an opinion. I am anti-gun / pro-control, which is obvious since I am British.
It is not a good idea to legislate for the sake of it. Before introducing any form of gun control (including registries or licenses) you need to consider whether they will actually produce the desired results. I think that there are two main reasons why gun control is proposed:
Reason one is to reduce the overall amount of people who are killed. I think we can all agree that the majority of people killed by guns are killed by handguns in urban areas. This is mainly down to gangs, drugs and other crime for money and is greatly influenced by poverty. If you were to introduce a registry, or a licensing system similar to a driving license, I think that there would be little to no effect on the overall number of people killed by guns. These urban criminals would register if possible and cheap or simply continue to hide their guns if not. The way to reduce these fatalities (other than dealing with the poverty) would be make it extremely difficult for a person to obtain a concealable firearm. Since this is not on the table, the other ideas are just a waste of time, money and political will.
Reason two is to reduce the massacres such as the one that made this debate heat up. The people who commit these massacres intend to die and obviously do not care about and laws, let alone licensing. The way that you would reduce these massacres (other than tackling the previously debated mental health issues, publicity issues, etc) would be to legislate to form responsible gun owners to keep their weapons locked away where a young crazy person cannot possibly access them. If this is not on the table then a registry is once again a waste of resources.
As well as looking at what we want to achieve we are obviously looking at what we are trying to avoid. I do not want to chime in again on the liberty stuff etc, but rather on something more pragmatic. The USA has large areas of low population density. Some people who live in rural areas obviously require tools such as guns to be used for killing animals (not only hunting, but also pests and dangerous animals). Apart from war and sport, killing animals is what guns should actually be used for, after all it's our tools that made us the dominant species on the planet. Therefore, if any sort of control was implemented I believe that it would be important to protect the ability of people in rural areas to use guns to kill animals. I do not know enough about guns or animals to be any more specific, just that it is important to keep in mind.
|
On May 14 2013 06:20 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:09 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 06:07 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2013 05:50 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 05:46 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... But it is so much easier to attack strawmans! I don't think he's trying to straw man, I think he just responds to posts before reading the string of posts leading to said post leaving him ignorant to the context of what he is responding to. It's equally annoying. Well I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he has the reading comprehension to understand what you meant and is just trying to manipulate what you said to make it sound like something else. edit: apparently I was giving him too much credit because On May 14 2013 05:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think your statement for a moment... Correlation =/= causation. Not all countries who have instituted registries have lead to gun bans. You assuming a registry leads to a gun ban is a false argument for the same reason buying a gun does not cause someone to shoot people. If you believe that gun registry automatically means gun ban then you should allow the other side of that coin where owning guns leads to shooting people. Both are wrong, both for the same reason. X_X oooook His point holds weight, it's just badly expressed. There is no logical reason to fear a gun registry in and of itself. There is a logical basis for fearing a gun ban. To fear a gun registry, one must first assume an impending gun ban. You can argue that the combination of gun ban + gun registry compounds to make it worth fearing a registry. Unfortunately the reality is that there is already a registry for most purchases in the past 20 years (background check records), it just isn't indexed. Thus a national gun registry would not significantly exacerbate a gun ban. All information from background checks are destroyed within 24 hours as per federal law, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheethttp://factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/ Sale records are required to be kept locally for 20 years. Thus every sale that has a background check has a record. True but FFL dealers keeping sales records hardly equates to a gun registry where every gun will need to be reported to the registry when it becomes owned by another person. People fear a national registry because the government will be able to know where all guns are. Currently you can sell your gun and the government would be none the wiser of the new owner.
True, because of poor legislation. I wouldn't be very surprised if a universal background check bill passed in the next five years. Because it kind of closes wide security holes in the "you can't sell to criminals" spiel without overly affecting legal owners.
|
On May 14 2013 06:24 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:13 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:09 heliusx wrote:On May 14 2013 06:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 06:01 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 14 2013 05:57 kmillz wrote:On May 14 2013 05:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What strawman? You were shown that countries can put in registries without leading to gun bans--you then stick to your argument that registries lead to gun bans, that is a false argument. That's the strawman you are attacking lol Unless you can quote me where he said or implied exactly that/ You mean when he said this? On May 14 2013 05:41 heliusx wrote:Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally. On May 14 2013 05:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Not all countries who put together registries have banned guns much like not all people who buy guns have used it to shoot people. Why think there is causation in one, but no causation in the other? Think about your statement for a moment... Specifically this? "Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one. " Where he specifically states "used registries to collect gun from citizens" This is the same page man. You don't even need to hit the back button. I'm dumbfounded by your absolute failure in reading comprehension. To use your own example to show you why you sound foolish right now: can you not be leery of the dangers of guns without assuming that somebody possessing one will kill somebody? Read his sentence again. Considering countries have used registries to collect gun from citizens it would be unwise to not be leery of one He is saying that countries in the past have used registries as a stepping stone for gun bans and sticks to it after it is shown that gun registries don't always lead to gun bans. That is a false argument. In fact, read the rest of what he says. "Just because something isn't 100% certain doesn't mean you should ignore the possible consequences. Also you have to consider there are legislators who actually want to remove guns, so there are good reasons to be suspicious of what could happen in the future should we enact a registry nationally." He says we should be leery despite evidence not showing it. "Just because something isn't 100%" is somehow proof enough to ignore the actual tangible proof of the existence of countries that have registries without gun bans. You are literally hinging your argument that some countries that have gun bans have a registry and implying that the registry leads to the ban without any evidence and actually the evidence of existence to the contrary. So please, stop backtracking. You still don't get it. Which is both dumbfounding and pathetic. fine, clear it up then. Does a registry lead to a gun ban?o As I said before, gun registries have been used to collect firearms from citizens. Therefore it would be wise to be leery of such a law. There I said the exact same thing. At no point did I intend to insinuate it ALWAYS leads to a ban and collection. Do you understand now? It's a yes or no question. Evidence shows that registries does not lead to gun bans by the existence of countries that have it but don't ban guns. being that that is the case, why would you believe a registry would lead to a gun ban when evidence shows the contrary? You're argument is that there was some country out there somewhere on this planet that put a registry and had a gun ban afterwards. That is correlation implying causation--by definition. Please just stop posting. The stupidity of your posts are becoming overwhelming. And I am at a loss for how you could believe the things you are saying are logical.
I am asking you a direct question.
Why do you believe that a registry "might" lead to gun bans when not all countries who have registries have gun bans?
|
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty?
|
On May 14 2013 06:35 hzflank wrote:
I was just thinking of something that would make me sound like a complete idiot to all sides but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me. Then I found that some companies are already working on it.
Basically, have a gun that can only be fire by a person with the fingerprints associated with the gun (or some other biometric). If you combine that with thorough background checks on gun purchases and gradually remove guns without biometric locks from circulation, would you not solve a big part of the problem without too much infringement on liberty?
Guns that can't be passed around? Sounds awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
