What's wrong with having background checks for gun ownership?

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;13951025]There is no proof that gun regulations caused the murder rate to go higher. The murder rate is affected by many things besides gun regulations, e.g. economic conditions, street lighting, etc.

Exactly!!! Gun regulations do not impact criminals, but they can impact the law-abiding.

But the whole point of keeping the weapons was supposed to be in case the government became tyrannical. Then the armed populace would rise up - right? If the government let everybody keep their guns, but still became tyrannical some other way, how would all those gun owners coordinate their response? I see lots of difficulties in effectively using those weapons to combat any modern government.

I see. So your suggestion is to not have guns, not have liberty, and allow tyranny, simply because we don’t have guns equal to government? I see a lot of difficulties with this scenario.

I was answering your question of “We don’t deny people the opportunity to drive, or to drink alcohol, neither of which are constitutionally enumerated, just because others do them together, endangering the lives of others.” I was explaining that the reason we don’t deny people these things is because of the cost / benefit analysis. The benefit of driving a car, for example, is huge.

So, when it comes to a privilege, its okay for children to die accidentally, because of a cost/benefit analysis. But when it comes to a basic human, civil, you think we should be forced to give that up because of your cost/benefit analysis. what if tens of millions disagree with that analysis; do you think those opposed to gun ownership (except for government) should be tolerant of my ownership?

And so we accept the risk of car accidents, even though they kill quite a few people each year.

Gottcha. Except that cars kill far more kids than accidental shootings. Drowning kills far more kids. Pedestrian accidents kill slightly more. Accidental gun deaths among children, while tragic, are minute in comparison to the things you say are okay.

On the other hand, the benefit to the common good of owning an Abrams tank is somewhat smaller. So we choose not to accept the risk of allowing everyone to have a fully armed tank. It is not a civil rights issue because there is no inherent civil right to own a gun. There is just the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of one country. A civil right is something that transcends national boundaries. The 2nd amendment does not apply anywhere outside of the US.

Correct, sadly. It should also be pointed out that no foreign laws apply to the United States, so what other countries do is quite irrelevant. That said, every human being should have this right, as it is a basic human civil right.

That doesn’t make sense. You are telling me the point of the 2nd amendment is that it is not likely that our government will turn tyrannical? Why would we take special precautions for something that is not likely?

Read what I wrote again. The existence of the second amendment helps to make the need for armed resistance against the domestic government less likely. That’s a good thing, a huge, huge plus on the “cost/benefit analysis”.

Show me the numbers that support that. I still think citizens kill each other more in all those nations put together than their governments did.

I’ll leave that to you. Remember, I have no obligation to do anything to defend the protection of any basic human, civil, and constitutional right. I no more have to defend the second amendment’s existence than I do the first, 4th, or 5th. The fact that the constitution enumerates and defends them is all I need. You show me where citizens have killed each other with guns at a frequency greater than what governments do, and even if they do, how that translates into denying individuals their rights.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So let’s try it and then we will know for sure.

That’s what I thought, but the others I have been arguing with here have said the 2nd amendment was all about discouraging government tyranny.

Even I didn’t say “all about”. The Heller case that affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense. Writing the opinion of the court in the McDonald v Chicago case, Alito states: “Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.”

The Court also says that police cannot be held accountable for preventing crime.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reasons come from our history where the domestic government tried to prevent gun ownership, and in later times where government is trying to prevent gun ownership for self-defense. In both case, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right necessary for the individual’s protection.

Jon

 

[Adonia]

attn.com/stories/8813/president-obama-addresses-gun-control?utm_source=beingliberal&utm_medium=fbpost&utm_campaign=influencer

Obama said that the U.S. needs “common sense” gun laws that allow citizens to own guns but also prevent the wrong people from getting access to them. He said that the only way to reach that balance is to have better conversations about gun laws that don’t result in arguments about the “destruction of the Second Amendment.”

It is already the law that background checks must be done before the purchase of a firearm, so your question is a moot one. The problem with Obama and the liberals is when the new gun laws they want don’t work, they want more, and more, and more - all the while not enforcing the thousands of gun laws already on the books. And these new laws only affect the law abiding, the criminal thug element will not obey these as they do not obey any others.

 

[Adonia]

The background checks we have for gun acquisition in Canada are more then court checks and police checks. The police actually contact people you know and ask them if they think you should be allowed to purchase a gun.

How do I know this? Because the RCMP interviewed us when my husband’s co-worker applied for a firearms acquisition certificate. When they asked me my response was, “Hell, no, you’ll be investigating his wife’s murder if he he gets a gun.” Our daughter walked in while they were there. She had babysat for the family and had heard stuff she wished she hadn’t. They asked her and she replied, “NO! His wife wouldn’t be safe.”

Don’t know if it had any effect on their decision, but at least we got to speak.

You mean he couldn’t hurt or kill his wife with a knife? Or strangle her? Or in 50 other gun-less ways?

 

[Adonia]

Actually I think the obligation is on those who want stricter background checks to prove that they will not have a negative effect on the law-abiding, since we are talking about an enumerated right that cannot be infringed.

Jon

Too late, just about every right we have under the Constitution has already been infringed.

 

[Adonia]

My gripe about guns centers not so much on the risk of homicide, but suicide. Many people feel that they are too strong mentally to become suicidal. But the statistics of self-inflicted gun shot wound to end one’s life is staggering.

My personal with suicidal wishes came suddenly one day when I had a panic attack. During the panic attack my mind narrowed to such a degree that I could not think about anything but wanting to die. People will counter my experience that if I did not have a gun I could kill myself a thousand and one other ways, but I counter this type of thinking by saying that my desire to die not last long at all, and the panic attack relented. If I had a gun handy, I might not be here today, and by the time I planned out another means to kill myself, the panic attack would have subsided and my suicidal wished to boot.

The fact is that anybody can be driven to suicide and having a gun at hand makes things too easy. Very often the urge to commit suicide is short-lived and whether a person has a gun handy makes all the difference in the world.

If a person wants to commit suicide, what business is it of yours? So come on, let’s get serious here - there are hundreds of ways to kill yourself so a gun is not really needed. Japan has the highest incidents of suicides per capita and virtually no one has a gun. Gun control to prevent suicides is a straw man argument - it has no validity whatsoever and It’s nothing more than liberal do-gooders attempting to pull on people’s heart strings.

 

[Brendan]

So let’s try it and then we will know for sure.

Perhaps we should just require everyone who wants to commit a crime to wear purple sequined top hats. That way we can easily identify all the violent criminals before they commit their crimes.

That makes about as much sense as thinking that criminals will comply with gun laws…

That’s what I thought, but the others I have been arguing with here have said the 2nd amendment was all about discouraging government tyranny.

I haven’t seen anyone who claims that is the ONLY reason.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, when it comes to a privilege, its okay for children to die accidentally, because of a cost/benefit analysis.

It’s not OK. We do** reasonable **things to prevent these accidents, like requiring seat belts. But the economic advantage of having cars is enough that we don’t feel it is reasonable to stop driving. On the other hand, there is very little benefit, economic or otherwise to having an armed populace. So the cost / benefit analysis works against it.

But when it comes to a basic human, civil, you think we should be forced to give that up because of your cost/benefit analysis.

You keep saying it is a civil right, but it is not. It is just a Constitutional right.

Gottcha. Except that cars kill far more kids than accidental shootings.

And cars provide far more benefit than guns. The ratio still favors cars.

Correct, sadly.

“Sadly” according to you. “Thank goodness” according to many in other countries who are glad their country is not armed to the teeth like the US. It is just your opinion that this is a good thing.

It should also be pointed out that no foreign laws apply to the United States, so what other countries do is quite irrelevant.

It is irrelevant in that we are not bound to follow foreign ways. But it is relevant in that we can watch and learn from their experience.

That said, every human being should have this right, as it is a basic human civil right.

Not.

Read what I wrote again. The existence of the second amendment helps to make the need for armed resistance against the domestic government less likely. That’s a good thing, a huge, huge plus on the “cost/benefit analysis”.

Only if you figure it would have been likely without the guns. You have probably heard this one:

Joe asks Tom “Why do you have a banana in your ear?”
Tom replies “To keep alligators away.”
Joe says “But there are no alligators here!”
Tom replies “See, it works pretty well!”

That is how I see an armed populace keeping government tyranny down.

I’ll leave that to you. Remember, I have no obligation to do anything to defend the protection of any basic human, civil, and constitutional right. I no more have to defend the second amendment’s existence than I do the first, 4th, or 5th. The fact that the constitution enumerates and defends them is all I need.

That’s is all you need to argue your point in a US court of law. But the Constitution does you no good at all in supporting your claim that government kills more of its own people than citizens do.

You show me where citizens have killed each other with guns at a frequency greater than what governments do…

That’s easy. In the US, the murder rate is about 4.5 per 100,000. With a population of 320,000, that comes to 14,400 murders each year. Contrast that with the government’s killing of its own people. And for this I will be very generous and count every possible way in which they do that.

Police killings in 2015: 1,200.
Capital punishment: 28
(have I missed any big category?0​

Total = 1,228. Much less than the 14,400 citizen killings. And the citizen killings were probably much less justified than the government killings.

And for good measure, compare both of those numbers with this:

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.

In view of all these deaths, I think it justifies regulating guns at least.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Perhaps we should just require everyone who wants to commit a crime to wear purple sequined top hats. That way we can easily identify all the violent criminals before they commit their crimes.

That makes about as much sense as thinking that criminals will comply with gun laws…

Well, they wouldn’t be criminals if they complied with the laws, would they! That is what we call a tautology.

I haven’t seen anyone who claims that is the ONLY reason.

Whatever the stated reason, keeping down a tyrannical government or defending against muggers, neither reason stacks up as very strong in light of the harm done by allowing unregulated circulation of firearms.

 

[Brendan]

Well, they wouldn’t be criminals if they complied with the laws, would they! That is what we call a tautology.

So why would be expect gun control laws to work???

Whatever the stated reason, keeping down a tyrannical government or defending against muggers, neither reason stacks up as very strong in light of the harm done by allowing unregulated circulation of firearms.

Defending one’s life against violent attack or against rape certainly does, in fact, no justification is needed, as it is, by definition, legitimate defense, and thus provided for by the Natural Law.

 

[Rau]

…As of right now, the status quo is the current number of laws on the books. It is the height of arrogance to force citizenry to defend why they should not be encumbered by additional laws.

Forced? It’s called consultation and debate. The status quo should and will fall if it has no supporters, or for reasons of disinterest or otherwise, they choose to keep silent.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So why would be expect gun control laws to work???

That’s why I said, let’s try it and see.

Defending one’s life against violent attack or against rape certainly does, in fact, no justification is needed, as it is, by definition, legitimate defense, and thus provided for by the Natural Law.

Oh, it is legitimate defense, if you happen to have a gun. But there definitely is a need to justify why you should have that gun. There is no Natural Law reason why everyone should have the right to own a gun.

 

[Rau]

. Government is just a higher level street gang…

Fascinating view of America and its institutions and fears arising here. The Goverment (and the legislature?) are the product of the people, but to the people, they are street gangs?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Government is just a higher level street gang.

Typical anarchist viewpoint.

 

[JonNC]

It’s not OK. We do** reasonable **things to prevent these accidents, like requiring seat belts. But the economic advantage of having cars is enough that we don’t feel it is reasonable to stop driving. On the other hand, there is very little benefit, economic or otherwise to having an armed populace. So the cost / benefit analysis works against it.

You keep saying it is a civil right, but it is not. It is just a Constitutional right.

And cars provide far more benefit than guns. The ratio still favors cars.

“Sadly” according to you. “Thank goodness” according to many in other countries who are glad their country is not armed to the teeth like the US. It is just your opinion that this is a good thing.

It is irrelevant in that we are not bound to follow foreign ways. But it is relevant in that we can watch and learn from their experience.

Not.

Only if you figure it would have been likely without the guns. You have probably heard this one:

Joe asks Tom “Why do you have a banana in your ear?”
Tom replies “To keep alligators away.”
Joe says “But there are no alligators here!”
Tom replies “See, it works pretty well!”

That is how I see an armed populace keeping government tyranny down.

That’s is all you need to argue your point in a US court of law. But the Constitution does you no good at all in supporting your claim that government kills more of its own people than citizens do.

That’s easy. In the US, the murder rate is about 4.5 per 100,000. With a population of 320,000, that comes to 14,400 murders each year. Contrast that with the government’s killing of its own people. And for this I will be very generous and count every possible way in which they do that.

Police killings in 2015: 1,200.
Capital punishment: 28
(have I missed any big category?0​

Total = 1,228. Much less than the 14,400 citizen killings. And the citizen killings were probably much less justified than the government killings.

And for good measure, compare both of those numbers with this:

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.

In view of all these deaths, I think it justifies regulating guns at least.

If you are going to include shootings by people who have illegal guns, or have them illegally, those deaths need to be added to the government deaths because they didn’t do enough to prevent them. They spend too much time going after law-abiding gun owners. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who has a plan to stop gun violence that does not interfere with legal law abiding gun owners.

Jon

 

[mikekle]

Fascinating view of America and its institutions and fears arising here. The Goverment (and the legislature?) are the product of the people, but to the people, they are street gangs?

**Thomas Jefferson quote:

When a people fear their government there is tyranny, when a government fears its people, there is liberty".
**

Unfortunately, what we see today is a government that has successfully altered the definition of ‘tyranny’, so many people do not recognize it, or masquerade it as something else, ya know, like ‘due to national security concerns’ or better yet ‘for the general health and well being of people’, etc etc. LOL

It should be common sense that a tyrannical govt will never actually admit themselves to be tyrannical, they will naturally try to disguise their intent and actions as something else.

 

[Brendan]

That’s why I said, let’s try it and see.

And that is why I said we should try the purple hats.

Oh, it is legitimate defense, if you happen to have a gun. But there definitely is a need to justify why you should have that gun. There is no Natural Law reason why everyone should have the right to own a gun.

There is a Natural Law right to an effective defense. Since Natural Law, having it’s origin in God, is fully in accord with Reason, that would include guns if the criminals have guns. It would also include guns when it is reasonable that the attacker would be larger\stronger\better trained than you. In addition, since attacks are likely to occur without warning, it is in accord with Reason that one be prepared for the attack prior to the attack happening. Thus it is accord with Reason for a person to carry a gun.

As we had discussed earlier this year, we can look at the example of the 1943 Jewish Warsaw uprising. We agreed that Natural Law gave them the right to defend themselves, but did it give them the right to possess the guns to do so? Or did they commit a violation of the Natural Law to possess the guns?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is a Natural Law right to an effective defense.

No, the right you refer to says nothing about the effectiveness one’s defense. It just says you are entitled to do whatever you can at the time to defend yourself. It certainly does not say that a legitimate government acting for the common good must allow its citizens to possess any weapon they feel they need. Look real hard in the Catechism. You won’t find it there. Nor will you find it in any moral writings of any doctors of the Church or council proceedings.

As we had discussed earlier this year, we can look at the example of the 1943 Jewish Warsaw uprising. We agreed that Natural Law gave them the right to defend themselves, but did it give them the right to possess the guns to do so? Or did they commit a violation of the Natural Law to possess the guns?

You are setting up a false dichotomy when you propose that either Natural Law says people are entitled to have guns or having guns violates Natural Law. In fact it is neither.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you are going to include shootings by people who have illegal guns, or have them illegally, those deaths need to be added to the government deaths because they didn’t do enough to prevent them.

I mean… wait… just one more:

 

[Brendan]

No, the right you refer to says nothing about the effectiveness one’s defense. It just says you are entitled to do whatever you can at the time to defend yourself. It certainly does not say that a legitimate government acting for the common good must allow its citizens to possess any weapon they feel they need. Look real hard in the Catechism. You won’t find it there. Nor will you find it in any moral writings of any doctors of the Church or council proceedings.

Of course it does, to defend is the act of resisting an attack. An act, per Aquinas, has both an effect and a cause. The effect being that the attack is resisted. Therefore, a true defense is the one that brings about the effect of resisting the attack. Surely you agree that the Church is talking about true defense, not a false one. Ergo, the defense must at least be effective. The cause might certainly be firearms, but the defense must at least have a reasoned chance of producing the effect.

And I made no claim that ‘any weapon’ is needed, rather my claim is that the Natural Law entitles one to offer effective defense. If the aggressor is armed with firearms, or the aggressor is larger or better trained than you, that use of firearms is in accord with the Natural Law. Likewise, since an effective defense requires one to be prepared for the attack ahead of time, the carrying of firearms is likewise in accord with the Natural Law.

You are setting up a false dichotomy when you propose that either Natural Law says people are entitled to have guns or having guns violates Natural Law. In fact it is neither.

No false dichotomy, Did the resistance fighters of the Warsaw ghetto violate the Natural Law, either in their defense, or in the possession of firearms to engage in that defense?

If what you claimed earlier was correct, then the resistance fighters throwing punches alone would have been a legitimate defense against an aggressor that was armed with firearms, and that the resistance fighter had no right, either civil or under the Natural Law to possess firearms.

So the question to you is. Did those resistance fighter legitimately possess firearms. If so, under what ‘legio\law’ did they gain that right? If not, did they commit a moral error by possessing such firearms?