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

[Rau]

If you want to argue that firearms are an immoral means of self-defense, fine. The burden of proof is on you.

Were I arguing that, I’d agree with you. But clearly I’m not. We know that, in the appropriate circumstances, deciding to kill an aggressor can be a moral choice.

The question on foot is a different one. Whether it is a moral course for a society to make available to all comers, or nearly so, guns. This a matter for prudential judgement. Every society can judge this course of action and make its decision. Arguably your society did this long, long ago. It is a free society, and able to review that choice at any time.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Were I arguing that, I’d agree with you. But clearly I’m not. We know that, in the appropriate circumstances, deciding to kill an aggressor can be a moral choice.

The question on foot is a different one. Whether it is a moral course for a society to make available to all comers, or nearly so, guns. This a matter for prudential judgement. Every society can judge this course of action and make its decision. Arguably your society did this long, long ago. It is a free society, and able to review that choice at any time.

If they are not an immoral means and since we have a right to defend ourselves, there is nothing more to discuss. Society has no right to regulate my use of a weapon as I have not initiated violence against others.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If they are not an immoral means and since we have a right to defend ourselves, there is nothing more to discuss. Society has no right to regulate my use of a weapon as I have not initiated violence against others.

Legitimate authority (what you call society) has the moral right, according to the catechism, to pass laws and regulations on any matter concerning the common good, as long as those laws and regulations do not violate any moral precept, such as requiring someone to deny their faith. For example, society can regulate how close to the property line you are allowed to build a garage in the city. The right of society to regulate the placement of a garage does not depend on the act of building a garage being immoral. So why would you think society’s right to regulate guns is dependent on the using of guns being immoral? Why would you think society has the right to regulate building codes, but not the right to regulate the keeping of guns?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you want to argue that firearms are an immoral means of self-defense, fine. The burden of proof is on you.

Strawman argument. Rau was not arguing that firearms are an immoral means of self-defense.

 

[Rau]

If they are not an immoral means and since we have a right to defend ourselves, there is nothing more to discuss. Society has no right to regulate my use of a weapon as I have not initiated violence against others.

Your society is free to choose its organising principles. It has done so in fact, and it may review those principles. You oppose any form of regulation of your freedoms apropos guns because you like the idea of citizens owning guns with no, or nearly no, restrictions - not because society has no such right!

 

[Rau]

If they are not an immoral means and since we have a right to defend ourselves, there is nothing more to discuss. Society has no right to regulate my use of a weapon as I have not initiated violence against others.

I repeat: The question on foot is a different one. Whether it is a moral course for a society to make available to all comers, or nearly so, guns. This a matter for prudential judgement. Every society can judge this course of action and make its decision. Arguably your society did this long, long ago. It is a free society, and able to review that choice at any time.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If they are ONLY allowed to take away as man and not teaching than it can not be an objective good to take away.

And since taking away is objectively bad, we have the free will of those who cast the vote to steal.

Perhaps you will say “stealing” in this instance is “subjective”…

This is quite unintelligible, but based on what I think you might be trying to say, I will just point out that when legitimate authority, acting for the common good, establishes rules for us to live by, that is not stealing. Stealing is the illegitimate taking of what does not belong to you. To prove it is stealing you have to prove it is illegitimate. The standard for illegitimate government is quite a high bar. You cannot say a government is illegitimate simply because you disagree with their decisions.

 

[Rau]

Legitimate authority (what you call society) has the moral right, according to the catechism, to pass laws and regulations on any matter concerning the common good, as long as those laws and regulations do not violate any moral precept, such as requiring someone to deny their faith. For example, society can regulate how close to the property line you are allowed to build a garage in the city. The right of society to regulate the placement of a garage does not depend on the act of building a garage being immoral. So why would you think society’s right to regulate guns is dependent on the using of guns being immoral? Why would you think society has the right to regulate building codes, but not the right to regulate the keeping of guns?

There are so many freedoms we give up and no one (sensible) rails about the injustice of it. They judge the matter on its merits. In relation to guns, the very right to judge the matter is denied by some! And yet the US did judge it many years ago. What if they’d judged it with a different conclusions? Where would these folks sit then?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sure. Let’s start with disarming criminals, governments, etc. and go from there.

If we knew how to disarm just criminals, we would do so immediately. As there is no practical way to do this, regulating guns for everyone is the best we can do. Besides, even if we could take away all the guns from the criminals, that would do nothing for all the people who lose their lives due to gun accidents or suicides. But I’m not sure why you want to disarm governments, unless that government is illegitimate and you are planning a full-scale revolution.

 

[JonNC]

If we knew how to disarm just criminals, we would do so immediately. As there is no practical way to do this, regulating guns for everyone is the best we can do. Besides, even if we could take away all the guns from the criminals, that would do nothing for all the people who lose their lives due to gun accidents or suicides. But I’m not sure why you want to disarm governments, unless that government is illegitimate and you are planning a full-scale revolution.

And taking guns away from people who do not do violence to others or themselves also doesn’t solve the problem. Governments, particularly socialist governments, kill far more of there own citizens than citizens do each other. It is governments that inflict tyranny.
That’s why.
Gun laws always seem to be aimed at the law-abiding, the ones not committing acts of violence. It is immoral to take this right away from free citizens, and will do but harm the common good, which is best defined as individual rights, liberty, and strictly limited government…

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And taking guns away from people who do not do violence to others or themselves also doesn’t solve the problem.

That is your opinion. Others believe it can help.

Governments, particularly socialist governments, kill far more of there own citizens than citizens do each other.

Unsubstantiated claim, and statistically completely false.

It is immoral to take this right away from free citizens, and will do but harm the common good, which is best defined as individual rights, liberty, and strictly limited government…

The common good is best defined by legitimate authority. If you want to have a say in defining the common good, work through that.

 

[JonNC]

That is your opinion. Others believe it can help.

Unsubstantiated claim, and statistically completely false.

The common good is best defined by legitimate authority. If you want to have a say in defining the common good, work through that.

Statistically, about 262,000,000 people were victims of democide in the last century, the vast majority by socialist regimes.

hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

That’s your opinion of the common good. Others believe that individual rights is the basis of the common good.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

If we knew how to disarm just criminals, we would do so immediately. As there is no practical way to do this, regulating guns for everyone is the best we can do.

Law-abiding citizens obey the laws.

Criminals are lawbreakers, and thus do not obey the gun laws.

Gun laws impose restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow the law.

Gun laws, therefore, only hurt law-abiding citizens.

What is practical is Obama has failed in regards with, Big brother needs to actually prosecute the cases he has failed to do and listen to the people in the Democratic cities crying for help. They are not disarming criminals by not prosecuting cases, nor are they acting off the obvious needs of the police by having the police withdraw further and further from hands on presence by Obama policy.

The government is responsible for much of the on-going nonsense, just look at Baltimore.

So in short the governments antics and failures also don’t equate to hurting law abiding citizens,

Thanks.

Oh and further reading, I also am curious about your thinking on “right” and its application to “self defense”. I tend to see the two legally applied.

criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

 

[Bill1940]

Thank you Jon, for pointing out the fact that the greatest potential enemy is government itself. All else is merely quibbling over associated issues. Do we not think our Catholic understanding of the Principle of Subsidiarity is correct? Statists are deluded into the utopian nonsense which strives to create a heaven on earth. To achieve their unattainable ends, they suppress individual liberty as much as possible. Our progressive would be masters and mistresses seek to suppress our right to self-defense because the means to self-defense are also inimical to totalitarian governance.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gun laws impose restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow the law.

Not true. Regulations that make guns less available generally also make them harder to get for people who have no intention of following the law.

Oh and further reading, I also am curious about your thinking on “right” and its application to “self defense”. I tend to see the two legally applied.

criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

I refer to inherent rights given by God, not to rights defined legalistically. However, even the legal article you cited makes no mention of a right to proactively acquire weapons. At best it is a justification for using whatever weapons you have on hand when the threat is imminent.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Statistically, about 262,000,000 people were victims of democide in the last century, the vast majority by socialist regimes.

hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

That’s your opinion of the common good. Others believe that individual rights is the basis of the common good.

Jon

This blog is utter nonsense put forth by one, now deceased, political science professor. He stretches the definition of demicide to inflate his numbers, counting things like a famine. It reasonable to assume that far more people would die under anarchy.

 

[JonNC]

This blog is utter nonsense put forth by one, now deceased, political science professor. He stretches the definition of demicide to inflate his numbers, counting things like a famine. It reasonable to assume that far more people would die under anarchy.

Now you are making an unsubstantiated claim. In some African situations, famine and starvation has been intentionally used as a political weapon. It’s been used in Syria.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not true. Regulations that make guns less available generally also make them harder to get for people who have no intention of following the law.

No one is talking about reducing anything but restricting already suspect people on the FBI watch list because they’re doing things that create issues for the FBI to the point that they can’t fly on an airplane. Which is my point, Obama and Holder and Lynch have failed to address the criminal cases they have along with the police issues. He has a self created issue to which his solution was gun control to which no 2nd amendment can be taken and according to Chris Murphy -D-CT, in the filibuster. Further AR-15 restriction makes about as much sense as saying drunk driving will cease when Jack Daniels is banned.

I refer to inherent rights given by God, not to rights defined legalistically. However, even the legal article you cited makes no mention of a right to proactively acquire weapons. At best it is a justification for using whatever weapons you have on hand when the threat is imminent.

Me too, a right given by God, and your right to protect that right-life and by legal self defense. And from there the point is legal. If a threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. So we are talking a proportional response and if the criminal has a _______ you have the right to a proportional response. And with Obama an fast and furious and his lacking ability to actually apply existing law with guns and criminals makes the democrat gun chatter basically unacceptable as we see.

Its also true if we throw all guns in the ocean no one will be shot by a gun, but it is not true crime will stop. Further I think gun bans cause more crime as crime usually depends on opportunity and removing the guns from the assimilated creates more crime of opportunity. The number of homicides in England and Wales rose to an increase of 14% fuelled by rises in knife and gun crime. And this is especially true as economic strife is felt. But crime in the USA has increased because of Obamas attack on the police and neglect to apply the law which again leaves room for crime of opportunity.

 

[esieffe]

Methinks the “country club” atmosphere of prisons is overblown by conservatives.

I have never been to prison, however, the expectation at least here in TX is that prison is a living hell.

ICXC NIKA

I have to agree. When I was interested in prison ministry, I read many books written by former correction officers and former inmates. What they all described was hardly a country club.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t imagine what context conservatives used that line in, I don’t know anyone who thinks our penal system is a country club. As compared to what? Perhaps other areas of the world. Federal and state mandatory minimum sentences caused mass incarceration and was initiated back in the 80s. One might blame either party but I think its fair to say both these parties of late have worked somewhat together on an issue both created.

thewire.com/politics/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/