Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

[Cathoholic]

I talked about LeafbyNiggle’s wanting to ban handguns.

I showed how LeafbyNiggle ALSO wants to ban long guns (at least some of them).

I showed how LeafbyNiggle defines this as “moderate gun control”.

I gave LeafbyNiggle a chance to repudiate any of this (in case I was wrong).

LeafbyNiggle’s response?

.

I have no need to repudiate anything I have said.

.

LeafbyNiggle is willing to put his own personal “experience” over the Constitution (if some nebulous amount of others by “averaged” amount agree).

(This ignores the woman who has an ex-boyfriend who now threatens to kill her and her child. But now due to Government over-regulations, she cannot easily obtain one (and in “Gun-grabber world” CAN’T obtain one). What about HER experience? It only matters if enough of an “average” (whatever THAT means) agree with her.)

Fair enough LeafbyNiggle.

And for the readers of this thread . . . .

. . . .Now you KNOW.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:

I am willing to let my personal experience be averaged in with all the other citizens’ personal experiences in the ballot box. If your side wins, then so be it. If not, then that is the will of the majority and that will be OK too.

I was thinking that I would vote for political representatives who would amend the constitution - legally - to repeal the 2nd amendment. Then I wouldn’t be advocating anything over the constitution.

(This ignores the woman who has an ex-boyfriend who now threatens to kill her and her child. But now due to Government over-regulations, she cannot easily obtain one (and in “Gun-grabber world” CAN’T obtain one). What about HER experience? It only matters if enough of an “average” (whatever THAT means) agree with her.)

For every one woman with an angry ex-boyfriend whose life might have been saved by having ready access to a gun there will be ten people who will lose their lives to accident or suicide by gun. I can accept the possibility that someone may die because of our decision to limit guns if it means ten others will live.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

I can accept the possibility that someone may die because of our decision to limit guns if it means ten others will live

Great!

Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
by R. J. Rummel (Author)
.

This is R. J. Rummel’s fourth book in a series devoted to genocide and government mass murder, or what he calls democide. . . .
.
Rummel discusses genocide in China, Nazi Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. He also writes about areas of suspected genocide: North Korea, Mexico, and feudal Russia. His results clearly and decisively show that democracies commit less democide than other regimes. The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, “The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.” . . .

(Emphasis mine)

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Govern...1&keywords=death+by+government+by+r.j.+rummel

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:

I can accept the possibility that someone may die because of our decision to limit guns if it means ten others will live

I’m glad we agree on something.

Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
by R. J. Rummel (Author)

If Rummel were a poster here presenting his case for why the one ex-girlfriend should be permitted a gun and ten others should be permitted to die of suicide or accident, I would debate his points. But as he is not here to present his case, and no one else is doing it for him, I guess I won’t get that opportunity.

 

[Cathoholic]

But there is a broader principle here that you are ignoring LeafbyNiggle.

.
And you HAVE TO ignore it.

Why?

Because to admit it would undermine your argument.

So you want to argue “numbers” of gun violence victims, but have to ignore “numbers” of gun violence victims at the hands of Governments.

And now that I bring it up, you seem to dismiss it because Rummel isn’t posting here.

I’ll remember that LeafbyNiggle the next time you appeal to a New York Times article (or whatever other article you would appeal to).

I’ll remember this, and rebut your argument with this or that author of the article you cite, isn’t posting here on Catholic Answers Forums. Yep.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But there is a broader principle here that you are ignoring LeafbyNiggle.

.
And you HAVE TO ignore it.

Why?

Because to admit it would undermine your argument.

So you want to argue “numbers” of gun violence victims, but have to ignore “numbers” of gun violence victims at the hands of Governments.

Whether governments cause lots of murders or not, that does not affect the calculus between the one ex-girlfriend and the ten victims of suicide and accident that we were discussing. Banning guns or not banning guns isn’t going to affect the (supposed) death rate at the hands of government. If you think arming the masses with handguns is going to suddenly make all the governments play nice, you are mistaken. They will always have bigger guns.

And now that I bring it up, you seem to dismiss it because Rummel isn’t posting here.

I’ll remember that LeafbyNiggle the next time you appeal to a New York Times article (or whatever other article you would appeal to).

If I abdicate my duty to present an argument by referring to a New York Times opinion piece, you have every right to call me on it.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

If I abdicate my duty to present an argument . . . .

.
Good grief.

I’ve talked about Rummel’s book LeafbyNiggle.

I linked to Rummel’s information in post 320, and I quoted the Book sales introduction in post 329.

Why not just admit that it doesn’t matter to you?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

Banning guns or not banning guns isn’t going to affect the (supposed) death rate at the hands of government.
.

I don’t think you really believe that LeafbyNiggle (because I don’t think you KNOW that–you MAY be right. But you MAY be WRONG too).

But even if you do believe it, then I suggest you be an activist for Governments to disarm (and not law-abiding citizens).

But I don’t think you’ll do that. I have never seen Government expansion proposal here that you didn’t seem to favor.

I’m not saying it doesn’t occur, I’m just saying I’ve seen a lot of your posts and you are all about more Government and I’ve never seen you advocate for ANYTHING that shrinks Government LeafbyNiggle.

"Government will solve ALL our problems if we just bloat it enough" this attitude says to me.

While you are at it, look at Rummel’s thesis. His thesis centers around “freedom” not “gun ownership”.

.

The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence.

.

In a free society people can make firearm choices for themselves.

I’m not here to advocate for gun ownership.

I am here to advocate for freedom.
I am here to advocate for our Country’s founding principles.
I am here to advocate for the Constitution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:

If I abdicate my duty to present an argument . . . .
.
Good grief.

The part that I am unable to confront Rummel with (being that he is not a party to this debate) is the part where the freedom to own guns, specifically, is the freedom that correlates (negatively) with government-caused democide. There are many other freedoms that make up a democracy - the ability to vote out the leaders and vote in new leaders being the chief one. That seems to me to be the key freedom that prevents those governments from attacking their own people. So even if I accepted what you wrote about Rummel, that would not support the case against gun control. I’m not sure you are really applying Rummel properly. But not owning the book myself, I really don’t know for sure.

LeafbyNiggle:

Banning guns or not banning guns isn’t going to affect the (supposed) death rate at the hands of government.
.

I don’t think you really believe that LeafbyNiggle (because I don’t think you KNOW that–you MAY be right. But you MAY be WRONG too).

Absent any hard data to the contrary, the default assumption is that two things that don’t have any obvious causal connection between them, don’t have any causal connection. The burden is on you to show that there is a causal connection, since you introduced government killing as an argument in your favor.

But even if you do believe it, then I suggest you be an activist for Governments to disarm

I don’t think that would be a good idea, for as bad a governments are, what with the killing people and all (if you believe Rummel), they are not as bad as the anarchy of a fully armed populace. The Catechism says that government has a role to play in keeping the peace - by force if necessary. It would be contrary to the Catholic teaching to advocate for a totally disarmed government.

But I don’t think you’ll do that. I have never seen Government expansion here that you didn’t seem to favor. I’m not saying it doesn’t occur, I’m just saying I’ve seen a lot of your posts and you are all about more Government and I’ve never seen you advocate for ANYTHING that shrinks Government LeafbyNiggle.

Back when we used to have moderators on CAF, they would have said “discuss the issues, not each other.”

I am here to advocate for freedom
I am here to advocate for our Country’s founding principles.
I am here to advocate for the Constitution.

I am here to advocate for Catholicism.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

There are many other freedoms that make up a democracy - the ability to vote out the leaders and vote in new leaders being the chief one.

.

The only reason you can even make this point LeafbyNiggle is because you assume we are following the Constitution.

If the principle is that the Constitution can be whittled away in an area that I want (like gun control), then its JUST as OK for the Constitution to be whittled away in other areas too (like voting).

THAT’S one of the self-defeating aspects of gun control LeafbyNiggle. The very principle you “bank on” for freedom, gets undermined by your other position.

That’s not a healthy way to implement “freedom”.

You also said . . . .

.

Absent any hard data to the contrary, the default assumption is that two things that don’t have any obvious causal connection between them, don’t have any causal connection.

.

That’s fine that you bring this out. Why?

But in this case, it’s the best you can do.

WHY?

Because you can’t set up prospective randomized double-blinded studies with tyranny.

And the retrospective historical data will always be at least partially flawed because the “winner” gets to write much of the history. Not all of it but much of it (think the USSR vrs Alexander Solzhenitsyn).

You know LeafbyNiggle. Even the world gun stats are tainted as some countries do not tally certain gun deaths the same way we do in America.

All of this research is flawed to various degrees.

But the Constitution got us along pretty good. And the burden of proof is going to have to be on YOU, to SHOW ME you have something better.

And people’s mere usual opinions are not going to be persuasive. It’s going to have to be something pretty convincing.

And ignoring the Constitution and implementing incremental gun control is not fooling citizens anymore (at least many of the citizens).

You also mentioned . . .

.

I am here to advocate for Catholicism.

.

That’s great LeafbyNiggle.

Then I also want to see you on some more of the threads that advocate for the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. The defense of Baptism. Coming to the aid of the unborn in the abortion discussions. Some support for Humanae Vitae. A warning against divorce and re-marriage when Sacramentally married. Etc. etc.

And in all fairness to you, maybe you are doing this and I just haven’t seen it.

But “Catholicism” is NOT . . . “beating up on the good guy”, because . . . “the bad guy is out of line”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:
.

There are many other freedoms that make up a democracy - the ability to vote out the leaders and vote in new leaders being the chief one.

Slippery slope argument? I’m not buying it.

You also said . . . .

Absent any hard data to the contrary, the default assumption is that two things that don’t have any obvious causal connection between them, don’t have any causal connection.

That’s fine that you bring this out. Why?

But in this case, it’s the best you can do.

WHY?

Because you can’t set up prospective randomized double-blinded studies with tyranny.

That’s your problem, since you are the one who claimed the causal connection. As I said, the burden is on you to show there is a connection, not on me to show there isn’t.

But the Constitution got us along pretty good. And the burden of proof is going to have to be on YOU, to SHOW ME you have something better.

You want me to prove that gun control can work without letting me try gun control? Kind of unreasonable, don’t you think?

And ignoring the Constitution and implementing incremental gun control is not fooling citizens anymore (at least many of the citizens).

As I have said, I am in favor of overt above-board implementations - not implementations that ignore the Constitution.

You also mentioned . . .
.

I am here to advocate for Catholicism.

That’s great LeafbyNiggle.

Then I also want to see you on some more of the threads that advocate for the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. The defense of Baptism. Coming to the aid of the unborn in the abortion discussions. Some support for Humanae Vitae. A warning against divorce and re-marriage when Sacramentally married. Etc. etc.

As I said before, “discuss the issue at hand, not each other.” (Oh, I do miss our old moderators!)

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

Slippery slope argument?

.
LeafbyNiggle. Do you know what a “slippery slope argument” is?

It would be a slippery slope argument if I said BECAUSE you whittle away at one part of the Constitution it necessitates another.

But I am not saying that.

I am saying that the PRINCIPLE of defending the Constitution falls if you get to IGNORE the Constitution.

That’s just a fact. You can deny it but a fact it is.

I am also saying that if YOU think its OK for YOU to ignore some of the Constitution based on YOUR favorite cause, why NOT OTHER liberals saying the same thing concerning THEIR OTHER favorite cause too (or some guy/gal calling himself a “conservative” who wants to chip away at their area of the Constitution that THEY dislike for HIS/HER favorite cause for that matter)?

And you pretending this is a slippery slope argument is not going to be persuasive.

 

[Cathoholic]

That’s your problem

.

No LeafbyNiggle. Its YOUR problem (irrespective of Rummel’s book or not).

You wanting us to abandon our Constitution based upon your whims is not going to remove the burden of proof from you.

The Constitution remains.

 

[Cathoholic]

You want me to prove that gun control can work without letting me try gun control?

.

No.

I want the Constitution to be adhered to. (“Gun control” HAS been tried and IS being tried and is an utter failure.)

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

As I have said, I am in favor of overt above-board implementations - not implementations that ignore the Constitution.

Then where is your response here on CAF against Obama’s “no fly no buy” order? (And a host of other Constitutional violations? The “no fly list” itself is dubious. But when the late Ted Kennedy found himself on it, he was a phone call and a few minutes away from being off of it. THAT is an example of the ELITISM I am talking about. The good law abiding citizen who is placed on this has no reasonable timely recourse like this do they? WHERE is your condemnation of this in prior posts?)

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

As I said before, “discuss the issue at hand, not each other.”

.

YOU were the one that said you are here to defend Catholicism LeafbyNiggle, not me.

And I am OK with that.

But beware of reducing “Catholicism” down to Democrat-Socialist talking points.

And I don’t even have an issue with your frequent selling of Democrat politics here (under the guise of “Catholicism”). That’s OK by me too.

But we could use your help on some of the other threads defending Catholicism too

(And I would welcome that help from you on other threads LeafbyNiggle. You seem very passionate about your political beliefs. I think in some cases misguided, but passionate. I see that as a gift.

You are a gift LeafbyNiggle.

Don’t think because we don’t see eye-to-eye on politics that I don’t respect you or your opinions. I DO respect you. But some of these arguments and ideas you have imbibed, are not appropriate. Many are, but some are not. Attacking our Constitution is one that is “not”).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle. Do you know what a “slippery slope argument” is?
It would be a slippery slope argument if I said BECAUSE you whittle away at one part of the Constitution it necessitates another.
But I am not saying that.

You said:

If the principle is that the Constitution can be whittled away in an area that I want (like gun control), then its JUST as OK for the Constitution to be whittled away in other areas too (like voting).

“If X then Y” is so close to “Because of X then Y” that the difference is not worth mentioning.

I am saying that the PRINCIPLE of defending the Constitution falls if you get to IGNORE the Constitution.

A statement that I have never disagreed with.

I am also saying that if YOU think its OK for YOU to ignore some of the Constitution based on YOUR favorite cause

I have specifically said I do not think it is OK to ignore the Constitution. To amend the Constitution, yes. To ignore it, no.

That’s your problem
No LeafbyNiggle. Its YOUR problem (irrespective of Rummel’s book or not).

No I don’t. But I will repeat what it is I say is up to you to prove. We were talking about balancing the welfare of the one ex-girlfriend with the welfare of the ten victims of suicide and accident, when you brought in Rummel’s thesis, as if it was somehow relevant to the balance being struck. Even if you and I accept everything in Rummel’s book, how does that change the balance we were discussing? It is up to you to show that this new factor is in fact relevant. It is not up to me to show that it is irrelevant.

You want me to prove that gun control can work without letting me try gun control?

I dispute that it has been tried because to really try gun control we would have to totally ignore the Constitution or change it.

LeafbyNiggle:

As I have said, I am in favor of overt above-board implementations - not implementations that ignore the Constitution.

I am not going to expand the scope of this thread.

LeafbyNiggle:

As I said before, “discuss the issue at hand, not each other.”

I succumbed to temptation to score a cheap shot. I will try not to do that again.

Don’t think because we don’t see eye-to-eye on politics that I don’t respect you or your opinions. I DO respect you.

Thank you. And I respect your dedication at avoiding meaningless one-liner responses, but taking the time to type out in detail what you believe.

 

[Cathoholic]

Personal protection is not a “new factor”. (I suppose this is my meaningless “one liner”)

 

[DarkLight]

One problem with judging based off of local gun control is there are no import/export checks between states. So for example, Illinois has very strict gun laws. But several neighboring states have much looser laws. So people just drive over to the next state, buy their gun, pack it up in a box, and bring it home, and there’s really not much we can do short of stopping everyone at the state borders. National laws would be different - we already run those sorts of checks at national borders.

 

[Duesenberg]

One problem with judging based off of local gun control is there are no import/export checks between states. So for example, Illinois has very strict gun laws. But several neighboring states have much looser laws. So people just drive over to the next state, buy their gun, pack it up in a box, and bring it home, and there’s really not much we can do short of stopping everyone at the state borders. National laws would be different - we already run those sorts of checks at national borders.

No, that’s not true.

I live in California. I cannot just go to AZ or NV and buy a gun that’s not available to me in California – at least not without committing a few felonies.