Teen girl in Columbus killed by police

[Belsnickel]

(04-30-2021, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Freedom of speech is limited and regulated for public safety.

Freedom of the press is limited and regulated for public safety.

"Civil Liberties" are not some magical right that can't be limited and regulated for any purpose.  

And firearms are currently regulated for public safety. I am stating that trying to draw equivalencies between something that is not a civil liberty and something that is, is a fallacious argument. But nice strawman.

(04-30-2021, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then post links to the data and research that shows that gun registration would not be a huge benefit in keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

I'm not making that claim. Once again, I am stating you have no evidence for your argument. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which is you.

(04-30-2021, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No it does not.  

Common sense tells us that it would be much harder to sell registered traceable guns than ones that are not.  All you have to do is look at how i works with cars.  it is much harder to sell a car with no title because the purchaser is afraid of buying a stolen car.

Again, a false equivalency. Also a straw man because I didn't say it wouldn't be harder, only that the feasibility of enforcement would be extremely low.

(04-30-2021, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Common sense tells us that criminals would be much less likely to walk around in possession of an illegal weapon if they knew that every time they came in contact with a law enforcement officer they would have to show a registration.

Really? You think that is common sense? A criminal, who already shouldn't be in possession of a firearm, is going to be more concerned of being caught with a firearm because it's traceable? That makes zero sense to me.

(04-30-2021, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no evidence that would satisfy you.  If I am wrong then tell me what would.

Any evidence that comes from research would satisfy me. You have not provided one shred to support your claims.

(04-30-2021, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: If yu don't think registration would effect the marketing and possession of weapons then you have no clue "how policy actually works"

Again, a straw man.

(04-30-2021, 11:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The question is "Who is 'the possessor' of a weapon found in a car or residence with multiple occupants?

I know I sometimes dismiss people who make argument based on anectdotal evidence, but I have seen multiple cases where police were frustrated because they felt another person was claiming ownership of a gun that actually belonged to a convicted felon in a vehicle or residence.

So in your scenario with registration, three potential options. One, pistol isn't registered. So now someone else becomes a felon. Two, pistol is registered to the person that actually claims ownership, but may be in access of felon. Three, firearm is registered to someone else and is stolen property. Who is the possessor of the stolen property? Is non-felon still claiming ownership? Now we have same scenario as before.

(04-30-2021, 11:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You brag that you "know how policy actually works" but in this case you don't have a clue.

You're a funny one, Fred. This is actually one of the areas where I know so much more than you. I have quite literally spent hours upon hours reviewing the research on this topic. I can tell you what gun control policies have evidence to support them and those that don't. I can tell you what topics haven't had any research put into them and show the letters I've written to Senators and Representatives advocating for research on the topics (including this one, for that matter).

You think I'm just against gun control. What I am against is bad policy. I am against policy that is not supported by evidence. Policy that limits our civil liberties without verifiable evidence that it will actually have a positive impact on the problem it is trying to solve.