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

[GEddie]

Things aren’t going well in the “armed society,” where it seems that someplace gets shot up almost every other day.

Proponents of the AS like to say that if everybody were armed, Orlando, say, wouldn’t have happened. More likely, what would have happened is four or five casualties rather than almost fifty. But against that, what about the people who do not get shot in such venues over emotions that get out of hand?

ICXC NIKA

 

[ricmat]

Things aren’t going well in the “armed society,” where it seems that someplace gets shot up almost every other day.

Proponents of the AS like to say that if everybody were armed, Orlando, say, wouldn’t have happened. More likely, what would have happened is four or five casualties rather than almost fifty. But against that, what about the people who do not get shot in such venues over emotions that get out of hand?

ICXC NIKA

Yes people get shot every day. And die by car. And die by knives, and poison, and strangulation. And die by falling off ladders (which I read someplace kills more people than guns do in the US).

How will you prevent emotionally unstable people from obtaining guns? e.g. In one of the recent mass shootings the mother of the gunman knew he son was mentally ill and bought him a gun anyway ( I suppose because she knew he couldn’t get one himself).

Only by taking away the right for anyone to own a gun will no one have a gun. Except those who don’t care about the law. For example, terrorists and criminals in general. And those protecting our VIPs (they exempt themselves from every law it seems).

 

[Rau]

Things aren’t going well in the “armed society,” where it seems that someplace gets shot up almost every other day.

Proponents of the AS like to say that if everybody were armed, Orlando, say, wouldn’t have happened. More likely, what would have happened is four or five casualties rather than almost fifty. But against that, what about the people who do not get shot in such venues over emotions that get out of hand?

ICXC NIKA

Can you imagine if the patrons at Orlando had been armed? This first shots ring out? 40 patrons draw weapons and start shooting at the person firing at…the person firing at…the person firing at…the real shooter (?). Many guns may well produce a worse outcome.

 

[Rau]

Yes people get shot every day. And die by car. And die by knives, and poison, and strangulation. And die by falling off ladders (which I read someplace kills more people than guns do in the US).

How will you prevent emotionally unstable people from obtaining guns? e.g. In one of the recent mass shootings the mother of the gunman knew he son was mentally ill and bought him a gun anyway ( I suppose because she knew he couldn’t get one himself).

Only by taking away the right for anyone to own a gun will no one have a gun. Except those who don’t care about the law. For example, terrorists and criminals in general. And those protecting our VIPs (they exempt themselves from every law it seems).

We keep coming back to why are violent gun deaths so prevalent in the US? The penetration of weapons is already very high, and the barriers to obtain them so low. Will still more armed amateurs make the situation better?

 

[JonNC]

We don’t need to go to one extreme or the other. Well armed law enforcement officers is a lot more trustworthy than trusting to the judgement of my neighbor who likes to imagine himself a vigilante.

Well armed law enforcement, as good as it is, is rarely there at the right time. And the SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement cannot be held liable when they are not.

The fact is that, other than suicide, the vast amount of gun homicides, particularly in large cities, are related to drug and gang activity. Reduce the drug and gang violence, and our gun related homicide rate would drop dramatically. And guess what, these high rates are typically found where gun laws are the strictest.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well armed law enforcement, as good as it is, is rarely there at the right time.

Nor are armed citizens there at the right time. If you really did have enough armed citizens to “be there at the right time”, you would have far too many poor judgement shootings. The average citizen, even those that are very interested in guns, are just not trained well enough to make those life-and-death calls. Even the professionals get it wrong. Can you imagine how much worse it would be with every Tom, Dick, and Harry deciding when to shoot?

The fact is that, other than suicide, the vast amount of gun homicides, particularly in large cities, are related to drug and gang activity. Reduce the drug and gang violence, and our gun related homicide rate would drop dramatically.

Domestic disputes accounts for a significant portion too - certainly more than the terrorism that everyone is so worried about.

And guess what, these high rates are typically found where gun laws are the strictest.

As I have said many times before, the cause and effect goes the opposite way from what you imagine. The strict gun laws don’t cause high crime rates. It is the high crime rates that prompt strict gun laws.

 

[ricmat]

We keep coming back to why are violent gun deaths so prevalent in the US? The penetration of weapons is already very high, and the barriers to obtain them so low. Will still more armed amateurs make the situation better?

As I’ve said, the only barrier that has a chance of working is “no one has guns.” But that won’t work either because what it becomes “in the real world” is “no one has guns except terrorists, crazed killers, and criminals.”

Amateurs - maybe not. Everyone should have some degree of training. How to handle, how to store, how to hit what you’re aiming at, how to wait until you can see what you should aim at. You know. That sort of stuff.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As I’ve said, the only barrier that has a chance of working is “no one has guns.” But that won’t work either because what it becomes “in the real world” is “no one has guns except terrorists, crazed killers, and criminals.”

Amateurs - maybe not. Everyone should have some degree of training. How to handle, how to store, how to hit what you’re aiming at, how to wait until you can see what you should aim at. You know. That sort of stuff.

Since you mention “in the real world” in your first paragraph, it is only fair that you consider it in your second.

Do you honestly think it is reasonable **in the real world ** to have everyone sufficiently trained, at least as well as the professional police, to make critical shooting decisions? Even the pros make mistakes, and they get a lot of training.

 

[GEddie]

Since you mention “in the real world” in your first paragraph, it is only fair that you consider it in your second.

Do you honestly think it is reasonable **in the real world ** to have everyone sufficiently trained, at least as well as the professional police, to make critical shooting decisions? Even the pros make mistakes, and they get a lot of training.

Beyond the fact that having training requirements to own a gun would be unacceptable to gun proponents, anyhow.

ICXC NIKA

 

[po18guy]

How about a background check for abortion? An innocent dies in each and every case.

While we are lamenting over the murderer’s murderous act in Florida, 1,000 innocent souls have died each day. Abortion is a “right” but there are no background checks!

We have gang, culture and jihadi problems - those are not solved by adding laws that do not apply to the violators.

 

[JonNC]

Nor are armed citizens there at the right time. If you really did have enough armed citizens to “be there at the right time”, you would have far too many poor judgement shootings. The average citizen, even those that are very interested in guns, are just not trained well enough to make those life-and-death calls. Even the professionals get it wrong. Can you imagine how much worse it would be with every Tom, Dick, and Harry deciding when to shoot?

Domestic disputes accounts for a significant portion too - certainly more than the terrorism that everyone is so worried about.

As I have said many times before, the cause and effect goes the opposite way from what you imagine. The strict gun laws don’t cause high crime rates. It is the high crime rates that prompt strict gun laws.

The gun laws can cause some of the crime rates, at least where gun-free zones offer a soft target. Beyond that, though, you are right, typically strict gun laws don’t impact crime, either way

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The gun laws can cause some of the crime rates, at least where gun-free zones offer a soft target.

Do you have any stats to back that up? Or are you just basing this on “common sense”? Because if are relying on “common sense” for your conclusions, it is only fair to allow me to rely on “common sense” too. In particular, it is “common sense” that if you take away guns there will be fewer shootings.

Beyond that, though, you are right, typically strict gun laws don’t impact crime, either way

Jon

Well, we don’t know that from the data, do we? If we see a high crime area that has fairly strict gun laws, we have no way of knowing if the crime rate would be even higher if there were no gun laws. Or we might conclude that the gun laws, strict as they are, are not strict enough to do any good. There are lots of ways to interpret the data. Who is to say which way is correct?

 

[JonNC]

Do you have any stats to back that up? Or are you just basing this on “common sense”? Because if are relying on “common sense” for your conclusions, it is only fair to allow me to rely on “common sense” too. In particular, it is “common sense” that if you take away guns there will be fewer shootings.

Well, we don’t know that from the data, do we? If we see a high crime area that has fairly strict gun laws, we have no way of knowing if the crime rate would be even higher if there were no gun laws. Or we might conclude that the gun laws, strict as they are, are not strict enough to do any good. There are lots of ways to interpret the data. Who is to say which way is correct?

Columbine, Aurora, Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Paducah, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech. I can’t think of one of these shootings that was not a gun free zone.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Columbine, Aurora, Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Paducah, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech. I can’t think of one of these shootings that was not a gun free zone.

Jon

Fort Hood was a gun free zone? Yes, guns are tightly controller there, but there should have been plenty of guns in the hands of soldiers on duty. I think you are arguing for guns in the possession of people not on duty, right?

Also you only cite the sensational mass shootings. I’ll bet there were fewer ordinary shootings (of the non-sensational type) in the gun free zones than in adjacent residential areas.

 

[JonNC]

Fort Hood was a gun free zone? Yes, guns are tightly controller there, but there should have been plenty of guns in the hands of soldiers on duty. I think you are arguing for guns in the possession of people not on duty, right?

Also you only cite the sensational mass shootings. I’ll bet there were fewer ordinary shootings (of the non-sensational type) in the gun free zones than in adjacent residential areas.

Yes. Military personnel, IIRC, are not allowed to carry. Only law enforcement. Same with the recruiting station shooting. But if you recall my first comment:
The gun laws can cause some of the crime rates, at least where gun-free zones offer a soft target. I made it clear that I was not talking about all shootings. The gang and drug shootings seem immune from any laws, since criminals have little regard for laws, including gun laws. Stricter laws typically impact the law abiding, not criminals

Jon

 

[Robert_Sock]

The real problem is that we live in a society that stuffs aggression and violence down our throats. The values of peace and love are far below these values. If you want to change our society and make it more peaceful and loving, we must alter the above negative key values, and truly choose peace and love.

 

[LethalMouse]

Well, the sheep get to decide where to live. And the wolves cooperate to decide where to hunt.

Right given by the people are decided by the people. Rights given by God can only be justly denied by God. Guns in society is in the former set.

60% of catholics and last I read 80+% of clergy are against guns.

God reading the OT
God who sent Joan of Arc
God whose church teaching has the just war theory
God whose Church teaching who says we must defend the weak etc…
Jesus who told Peter to strategetically sheath his sword but not throw it away

And one wonders why the church is incapable of teaching in a magisterial manner that gun bans are good…

Hmmm does the Holy Spirit guide her or not?

 

[jmcrae]

Nobody does a background check to make sure that car owners and drivers are sane and have no criminal record. You can only lose your license for a tiny list of offenses.

Actually, they do. You can’t sell a car to a drunk driver, for example.

And yet cars kill a lot more people than guns. By an order of magnitude. You will seldom be in danger from a gun, but you are in a car’s strike zone every day. Yet we don’t cower in fear; we just look both ways.

If we treated guns like cars, as useful tools, the laws would make much more sense.

Cars, when being used according to their design, don’t kill people.

Guns, when being used according to their design, do kill people.

That’s the difference.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually, they do. You can’t sell a car to a drunk driver, for example.

Cars, when being used according to their design, don’t kill people.

Guns, when being used according to their design, do kill people.

That’s the difference.

Also, by cost/benefit analysis, cars have huge benefit. Guns, only a tiny benefit. So we put up with the dangers of cars to reap that huge benefit. But there is no reason to put up with the danger of guns for the tiny benefit they confer.

 

[Rau]

60% of catholics and last I read 80+% of clergy are against guns.

God reading the OT
God who sent Joan of Arc
God whose church teaching has the just war theory
God whose Church teaching who says we must defend the weak etc…
Jesus who told Peter to strategetically sheath his sword but not throw it away

And one wonders why the church is incapable of teaching in a magisterial manner that gun bans are good…

Hmmm does the Holy Spirit guide her or not?

Gun practices are matters for prudential judgement. But there are numerous statements from conferences of bishops framed in that light.