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

[LeafByNiggle]

Who is talking about utter disdain. This is a straw man. Government in America has not been a clear and present danger because of the safeguards the constitution has in place, to limit its power to those enumerated powers, and to prevent it from infringing on protected rights.

So if Americans are not in a clear and present danger of our government being a tyranny, why must we arm the citizenry against that very danger?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you willing to allow government to confiscate any or all rights? It’s a simple yes or no.

Jon

OK, I’ll bite. “No”. I can’t wait to see what you intend to make of that.

(Shouldn’t you be out watching fireworks or something? I’ll be going in a few minutes to do just that.)

 

[LethalMouse]

For an individual to come and take your property by force, that would be immoral. But for a legitimate authority over the community in which you live to establish a rule under which you are not allowed to keep a gun in a way that the community deems to be dangerous, that can be moral, even if it is enacted by force. Legitimate authority does have that right, if it is done justly. Now there are many ways in which the enacting of such a rule could be unjust, in which case it would be immoral. But it depends on the details. You cannot make a blanket statement that says it is immoral for the community rules to deprive you of your gun under any possible circumstances. For example, if one become mentally unstable, his gun may be taken away by force quite morally.

You made yourself an out by defining irregular circumstance. So let me make this crystal ball magic hypotbetical since we are getting ridiculous.

Tomorrow your views are made law of the land.

Your views as presented here are that

1. LM is not “bad” or “immoral” for haveing a gun
2. It is immoral to have an armed society because YOU feel that it can create more bad than good.

So all the world is subject to your law and all must turn in their arms.

LM refuses but not even publicly, just sits in his house as well as say 500 other people in the world

Now you look into a magic crystal ball and KNOW that these people are basically living saints including LM the only thing they have or will ever do wrong is keep ownership of their weapons.

Now by your law they need to be stolen from, and kidnapped… and if not compliant with those two options they may need killed.

Your move, moral master… do you steal, kidnap/kill them?

Now let’s assume no crystal ball ridiculous proof but I will say no “well if you are mental”

How about there is 500 people and some are the above living saints and some are maybe not so much but you don’t know who is who. And you do know that it is a majority of the 500 are saintly… maybe 3-20 of the 500 are bad…

Again is the stealing, kidnap, and murder of the over 400 good moral?

 

[LethalMouse]

So if Americans are not in a clear and present danger of our government being a tyranny, why must we arm the citizenry against that very danger?

So you wait for the tyranny and then ask the tyrant to toss you some weapons?

Why do I have fire extinguishers? Why do I keep one in my car?

Idk what bubble some people live in. But I have had a house fire, I have helped put out a fire on the side of the road.

I have calmed a situation with a crazy knife wielding guy. One that instead of “calm down I have a gun”

You want to be “hey buddy lets knife fight”

Let alone the large numbers of physically vulnerable who stop robbers, rapists and murderers every week bc of a gun…

The majority wandered life with no “clear and present danger”

You also have more peoplr live in cities and think idk what.

Around here a bear is a real thing.
Coyote packs are real things.

In some places mountain lions and wolves are real things.

Should we limit ourselves to sword fighting these things?

Or is your solution that “well maybe we can make a 4 bullet 1 gun solution for this one guy”

Where is that line drawn? I probably live rural enough to maybe pass your pinky up in the air test…

But what about where I used to live? It was thought by alot to be “suburban” people who vote in the “idk I just want to live my life and let the gov worry about important things” kinda way I hear here… and they were confused when we had bats, confused when there was a bear in the neighborhood, and a baby rattler attacking a yoing girl…

But most people would consider that not rural enough to warrant a exception by you so they can sword fight the bear?

And when we get rid of guns and people murder with swords… can we ban those?

How about thermite??? Do you know what thermite is made from???. I challenge you to ban thermite LOL.

 

[LucyEm]

You made yourself an out by defining irregular circumstance. So let me make this crystal ball magic hypotbetical since we are getting ridiculous.

Tomorrow your views are made law of the land.

Your views as presented here are that

1. LM is not “bad” or “immoral” for haveing a gun
2. It is immoral to have an armed society because YOU feel that it can create more bad than good.

So all the world is subject to your law and all must turn in their arms.

LM refuses but not even publicly, just sits in his house as well as say 500 other people in the world

Now you look into a magic crystal ball and KNOW that these people are basically living saints including LM the only thing they have or will ever do wrong is keep ownership of their weapons.

Now by your law they need to be stolen from, and kidnapped… and if not compliant with those two options they may need killed.

Your move, moral master… do you steal, kidnap/kill them?

Now let’s assume no crystal ball ridiculous proof but I will say no “well if you are mental”

How about there is 500 people and some are the above living saints and some are maybe not so much but you don’t know who is who. And you do know that it is a majority of the 500 are saintly… maybe 3-20 of the 500 are bad…

Again is the stealing, kidnap, and murder of the over 400 good moral?

Do you think along these lines when the government makes a law you don’t like, and maybe 500 of your buddies don’t like?

Surely we can assume the law of the land won’t be changing other than via due process? First, the right of gun ownership with zip interference by the authorities would need to be let go - by due process - requiring the appropriate consent and widespread support within the US system. That makes it permissible for the legislature to craft laws for appropriate regulation of gun ownership (as they do for other dangerous goods). And if those laws make some weapons previously legal now illegal to hold, the government could be expected to provide compensation. And ultimately, those acting illegally would be subject to enforcement of the law in the ordinary way. There is nothing novel or in your face about this!

Those Americans holding to the view that gun ownership is a divinely bestowed right which cannot be given up by society have a choice to make.

But before any tangible steps are taken, the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens need to be in favour. Only then could the required Congressional and State majorities be obtained. Given the strength and support of the pro-gun lobby, I think this is decades away.

 

[SilverShadow22]

The situation that you are defending (the right the keep and bear arms) is not like that. When you go to buy a gun, there is no gunfight. There isn’t even an imminent gunfight. All you have is a chance that maybe you might need a gun. And if you run the numbers, you will see that the vast majority of people in a typical modern nation never have an occasion to actually use lethal force to defend themselves. So the chance that you are providing against by getting a gun is extremely low. Going to a gunfight, as you described it, is an occasion where you are almost guaranteed to need a gun. So our situations are hardly ever a gunfight “or equivalent thereof”.

As for the first part, the only thing that is a logical extension of the right to self-defense is making reasonable plans for having the means for that self-defense. It is not logical to say that the right to self-defense implies the right to any conceivable means of defense. What is reasonable depends on the situation. If you are in a relatively lawless region, like Somalia, it is reasonable to acquire considerable fire power for defense. If you are living in a well-policed gated community with a low crime rate, it may very well be reasonable to have no weapon at all. That is what is logical.

Never did I say the right to self defense requires the right to all available options.

I said it is dependent on not being vastly outgunned. I don’t own a gun yet, but I have used and do know how to use them, and there are guns in the house I have access to if I needed them. The point is that the government has no right to tell us what we can and can’t have, arbitrarily, while both government and criminals use what they please. And every ‘reasonable’ restriction quickly becomes unreasonable because the ultimate goal is not safety for the citizens, it is safety for the tyrants.

The chances may be ‘extremely low’ that I’ll need to defend myself with a handgun, but they’re also ‘low’ for everyone who eventually had to. And interestingly enough, I’m more likely to need one wherever they’re most restricted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You made yourself an out by defining irregular circumstance. So let me make this crystal ball magic hypotbetical since we are getting ridiculous.

Tomorrow your views are made law of the land.

In a just society, that would only happen if my views happen to be the views of many other people as well. So it would not be just me, but most people.

Your views as presented here are that

1. LM is not “bad” or “immoral” for haveing a gun

1. It is immoral to have an armed society because YOU feel that it can create more bad than good.

I agree with #1, but not with #2. I didn’t say it was immoral to have a armed society. I just said that deciding not to have an armed society is a reasonable and OK thing for a society to decide. It would also be moral if they decided to be armed. Either way, it is a prudential judgment that a society can make.

So all the world is subject to your law and all must turn in their arms.

LM refuses but not even publicly, just sits in his house as well as say 500 other people in the world

Now you look into a magic crystal ball and KNOW that these people are basically living saints including LM the only thing they have or will ever do wrong is keep ownership of their weapons.

Well, that is getting quite hypothetical, because I can’t be entirely sure that I won’t misuse a gun some day. If I can’t be sure about myself, how could I possibly be sure about LM? But OK, I can go along by assuming that LM is a good friend of mine who I have strong reason to believe would be a responsible gun owner and would unlikely misuse a gun.

Now by your law they need to be stolen from, and kidnapped… and if not compliant with those two options they may need killed.

It is highly unlikely that the course of enforcement would run like that. There are many less serious measures that would be taken first.

Your move, moral master… do you steal, kidnap/kill them?

Well, now you have promoted me from a mere voter for gun regulations to the chief of police or some such thing. In that office I would try to follow the law according to the rules established for my office. I don’t think most police chiefs would take it upon themselves to kill or kidnap a violator of gun regulations. I don’t even think they would be empowered to come to your home and “steal” your gun. Hopefully due process would be followed.

How about there is 500 people and some are the above living saints and some are maybe not so much but you don’t know who is who. And you do know that it is a majority of the 500 are saintly… maybe 3-20 of the 500 are bad…

Again is the stealing, kidnap, and murder of the over 400 good moral?

If most of the 500 are living saints, then they recognize the legitimate authority of the society in which they live, and they willingly submit to those rules.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you wait for the tyranny and then ask the tyrant to toss you some weapons?

Why do I have fire extinguishers? Why do I keep one in my car?

To use the “fire extinguisher” analogy to represent guns, you should assume that a large number of fire extinguishers occasionally malfunction and actually burst into flame, causing a fire. If fire extinguishers were that unreliable, I doubt if you would be carrying one in your car.

I have calmed a situation with a crazy knife wielding guy. One that instead of “calm down I have a gun”

Logical gun policy must be based on statistics, not on anecdotes. If you want to use anecdotes, I can give you a couple of anecdotes about cases where a gun was left at home, found by a young child, who then shot himself dead.

Let alone the large numbers of physically vulnerable who stop robbers, rapists and murderers every week bc of a gun…

Well, now you are starting to flirt with numbers, but “large numbers” is not a very precise term. I can also cite “large numbers” of accidental deaths of young children who found their parents’ gun.

Around here a bear is a real thing.
Coyote packs are real things.

In some places mountain lions and wolves are real things.

Should we limit ourselves to sword fighting these things?

I would not advocate a one size fits all policy toward guns. I think it is reasonable to have weapons appropriate to your situation. People who live where they are likely to encounter bear or coyote packs or mountain lions or wolves should carry a gun.

Or is your solution that “well maybe we can make a 4 bullet 1 gun solution for this one guy”

It would not have to be for just this one guy. It could be for all people living in rural areas in your state. And it would not have to be a 4 bullet 1 gun solution. It could be something that is reasonably appropriate, like what people in your area use currently.

Where is that line drawn? I probably live rural enough to maybe pass your pinky up in the air test…

This is a general problem in law - not just in gun law. People’s situations lie on a continuum, but law must address them in categories. There are thresholds that are somewhat arbitrary. It is not ideal, but it is hopefully adaptable enough to address everyone’s situation without being too unjust.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Never did I say the right to self defense requires the right to all available options.

I said it is dependent on not being vastly outgunned. I don’t own a gun yet, but I have used and do know how to use them, and there are guns in the house I have access to if I needed them. The point is that the government has no right to tell us what we can and can’t have, arbitrarily…

But it is not completely arbitrary. You just admitted that the government may have the authority to limit your use of weapons(“Never did I say…” above). And I will admit that the government should not be arbitrary in those limitations, but should strive to provide the maximum freedom to all individuals, consistent with the public good.

What you call being “vastly outgunned” others may call “not being in any danger at all”. The conflict that you imagine is, well, imaginary - hypothetical. It could happen. But will it?

And every ‘reasonable’ restriction quickly becomes unreasonable because the ultimate goal is not safety for the citizens, it is safety for the tyrants.

This is an unfair characterization of public servants who do, despite your cynical outlook, strive to serve the public good, and the safety of the citizens is the primary concern.

The chances may be ‘extremely low’ that I’ll need to defend myself with a handgun, but they’re also ‘low’ for everyone who eventually had to. And interestingly enough, I’m more likely to need one wherever they’re most restricted.

Well, I hardly think that is true. LM’s cases of living around bear and coyote packs, etc. would make the need for guns much higher than in a city, where gun regulations are more strict. And as long as we are talking about chances, please factor in the chances that having a gun in the house results in the accidental death of a child who finds said gun.

 

[JonNC]

OK, I’ll bite. “No”. I can’t wait to see what you intend to make of that.

(Shouldn’t you be out watching fireworks or something? I’ll be going in a few minutes to do just that.)

Did you enjoy the fireworks?

I think you know me by now that this was not a gottcha.

Here’s my point; regarding the enumerated rights, if we allow government to pick and choose which enumerated right they can confiscate, then they will be able to pick and choose any of them. this has become evident in the recent House and Senate bills regarding due process. Some are not only willing but intent on confiscating due process rights for anyone on the no-fly list, and terror watch list. If they can confiscate due process rights for some, they can confiscate due process rights for all. And it isn’t just in the case of this instance. We see the same violation of due process in asset forfeiture laws. We either believe in the presumption of innocence or we don’t. It is obvious some in Congress don’t.

We see a movement by some state attorneys general and AG Lynch to prosecute people for expressing skepticism of AGW. This is the tip of the iceberg of the growing anti-free speech efforts, including those on state university campuses.

I won’t go into the litany of attacks on religious free exercise, but one can easily see the direction. If we assume that any enumerated right is subject to government control and elimination, we must assume that they have the power to eliminate any and all of them, and this is completely contradictory to the intention of the Bill of Rights, which was designed to limit federal government power. Thank God for the anti-Federalists.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So if Americans are not in a clear and present danger of our government being a tyranny, why must we arm the citizenry against that very danger?

why should we wait until we are in a clear and present danger? Progressives say we should be forced to buy health insurance even when we are not sick, or don’t need or want it. So, it seems progressives would understand the concept.

Jon

 

[LethalMouse]

To use the “fire extinguisher” analogy to represent guns, you should assume that a large number of fire extinguishers occasionally malfunction and actually burst into flame, causing a fire. If fire extinguishers were that unreliable, I doubt if you would be carrying one in your car.

Logical gun policy must be based on statistics, not on anecdotes. If you want to use anecdotes, I can give you a couple of anecdotes about cases where a gun was left at home, found by a young child, who then shot himself dead.

Well, now you are starting to flirt with numbers, but “large numbers” is not a very precise term. I can also cite “large numbers” of accidental deaths of young children who found their parents’ gun.

I would not advocate a one size fits all policy toward guns. I think it is reasonable to have weapons appropriate to your situation. People who live where they are likely to encounter bear or coyote packs or mountain lions or wolves should carry a gun.

It would not have to be for just this one guy. It could be for all people living in rural areas in your state. And it would not have to be a 4 bullet 1 gun solution. It could be something that is reasonably appropriate, like what people in your area use currently.

This is a general problem in law - not just in gun law. People’s situations lie on a continuum, but law must address them in categories. There are thresholds that are somewhat arbitrary. It is not ideal, but it is hopefully adaptable enough to address everyone’s situation without being too unjust.

Your solutions are simole sounding but not.

So I have my handgun bc carrying a shotgun all day is rather insanely annoying.

I can drive to my store and bank bc they are still “rural” enough. But I am out 15 miles from my house and get a call to do something 25 miles away in a “non rural enough” zone… well now if I drive there I am a felon.

Or I have to drive hime and put my gun away. Now be unarmed in the area where even you say I should have a gun and go to the gun free zone.

Now I leave there later and go home at night…

Yeah good solution

 

[LethalMouse]

And have some nunbers

americangunfacts.com

 

[SilverShadow22]

But it is not completely arbitrary. You just admitted that the government may have the authority to limit your use of weapons(“Never did I say…” above). And I will admit that the government should not be arbitrary in those limitations, but should strive to provide the maximum freedom to all individuals, consistent with the public good.

What you call being “vastly outgunned” others may call “not being in any danger at all”. The conflict that you imagine is, well, imaginary - hypothetical. It could happen. But will it?

This is an unfair characterization of public servants who do, despite your cynical outlook, strive to serve the public good, and the safety of the citizens is the primary concern.

Well, I hardly think that is true. LM’s cases of living around bear and coyote packs, etc. would make the need for guns much higher than in a city, where gun regulations are more strict. And as long as we are talking about chances, please factor in the chances that having a gun in the house results in the accidental death of a child who finds said gun.

Never did I say. But now I am. This thread has made me more hard-line than I was to begin with.

It’s not an unfair characterization. I don’t care if they THINK it’s the public good, they need to stay out of my life.

I live rural. I’d fit your criteria for ‘needing’ guns. And you must have missed the part where the cities with the most gun control have the most gun violence. Chicago is more dangerous per capita than the war zone in the middle east.

There were guns in the house for my entire life. It never once occurred to me to mess with them. It was clear that even if I didn’t hurt myself with them, I’d be hurt for the transgression itself. I only ever touched the rifles when handing them to my father, until the day I finally got to shoot one.

Any dangerous item left in the reach of children is a parenting problem, not an item problem. Please stop wth that fallacy. By that argument, we should ban knives, Legos, and staircases.

Heck, my sister tried to eat a night light bulb and shoved a craft bead so far up her nose, they took her to the hospital to get it out. I think we should ban those things, too.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And have some nunbers

americangunfacts.com

Fortunately, they did link to the CDC so we can see what those numbers mean. American Gun Facts claims there were more than 2.5 million defensive uses of a gun in one year. To support this contention, the link cited in their footnote (2) is a 1995 academic paper. In that paper, the authors cite the National Crime Victimization Survey numbers of at most 82,000 defensive uses, but claims that other surveys show nine times as many uses. So apparently there is a lot of dispute over what the numbers are. Then the authors design yet another survey. The authors do discuss the difficulty with defining a defensive gun use (DGU), and make several hand-waving arguments to support a higher number.

But even if we accept the top estimate of 2.5 million DGU’s per year, one question this does not answer is what would have happened if a gun had not been available? Given the wide range of situations that might conceivably be called a DGU, there are certainly many of them (perhaps most of them?) where the use of the gun did not save a life. For example, scaring away vandals tipping over garbage cans by brandishing a gun could be called a DGU. However if the owner had simply stayed in his house and allowed the garbage cans to be tipped over, the worst he would have had is some garbage he had to pick up the next day. Of course this is an extreme example. I’m sure other instances were more serious. But in how many of those 2.5 million cases can we really say that the DGU saved an innocent life? We don’t know. The authors of the paper don’t know, nor did they even attempt to speculate on that question. They were just counting up DGUs as liberally as possible.

So why it is so important to count up the number of times a DGU actually saved an innocent life? Because the number of DGUs is being compared to the number of accidents, suicides, and homicides committed with a gun. In every one of those cases, some innocent person did die. So it hardly seems fair to count one DGU of scaring away drunken teenage vandals as having the same value as a 5-year old kid who finds his father’s gun and shoots himself dead. So comparing 2.5 million DGUs to 31,000 innocent gun deaths is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And you must have missed the part where the cities with the most gun control have the most gun violence. Chicago is more dangerous per capita than the war zone in the middle east.

Correlation does not imply causation. In this case, the causation goes the other way from what you are thinking. You are thinking that gun control causes gun violence, or at best is ineffective in preventing gun violence. A much more likely explanation of the statistic you cite is that in areas where there is first a high crime rate and high level of gun violence, there is more pressure on legislators to pass gun regulations. In rural areas where there was no gun violence to speak of, there was no such pressure to pass such regulations. So it comes as no surprise that Chicago would have stricter gun control than rural Wyoming.

There were guns in the house for my entire life. It never once occurred to me to mess with them. It was clear that even if I didn’t hurt myself with them, I’d be hurt for the transgression itself. I only ever touched the rifles when handing them to my father, until the day I finally got to shoot one.

We can’t make general policy based on one person’s personal experience.

Any dangerous item left in the reach of children is a parenting problem, not an item problem. Please stop wth that fallacy. By that argument, we should ban knives, Legos, and staircases.

It is not a fallacy. It is a valid argument. The society has a right to protect all its citizens, especially the most vulnerable - the children. That is why in extreme cases the state will take children away from abusive parents.

As for banning things in general, it is always a cost/benefit tradeoff. The relative risks and benefits are weighed. Cars, for example, are the most dangerous thing we have. But they are also extremely beneficial. So we put up with hazards of cars, while doing what we can to minimize those hazards, short of banning cars. And to be clear, we are not talking about an outright ban on guns. I’m sure you already agree that guns should not be allowed for the mentally ill.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

why should we wait until we are in a clear and present danger? Progressives say we should be forced to buy health insurance even when we are not sick, or don’t need or want it. So, it seems progressives would understand the concept.

Jon

A health insurance policy is not going to accidentally go off and kill my child. But a gun might. Buying a gun “just in case I need a gun” carries more risk than buying a health insurance policy “just in case I get sick”.

 

[LethalMouse]

Fortunately, they did link to the CDC so we can see what those numbers mean. American Gun Facts claims there were more than 2.5 million defensive uses of a gun in one year. To support this contention, the link cited in their footnote (2) is a 1995 academic paper. In that paper, the authors cite the National Crime Victimization Survey numbers of at most 82,000 defensive uses, but claims that other surveys show nine times as many uses. So apparently there is a lot of dispute over what the numbers are. Then the authors design yet another survey. The authors do discuss the difficulty with defining a defensive gun use (DGU), and make several hand-waving arguments to support a higher number.

But even if we accept the top estimate of 2.5 million DGU’s per year, one question this does not answer is what would have happened if a gun had not been available? Given the wide range of situations that might conceivably be called a DGU, there are certainly many of them (perhaps most of them?) where the use of the gun did not save a life. For example, scaring away vandals tipping over garbage cans by brandishing a gun could be called a DGU. However if the owner had simply stayed in his house and allowed the garbage cans to be tipped over, the worst he would have had is some garbage he had to pick up the next day. Of course this is an extreme example. I’m sure other instances were more serious. But in how many of those 2.5 million cases can we really say that the DGU saved an innocent life? We don’t know. The authors of the paper don’t know, nor did they even attempt to speculate on that question. They were just counting up DGUs as liberally as possible.

So why it is so important to count up the number of times a DGU actually saved an innocent life? Because the number of DGUs is being compared to the number of accidents, suicides, and homicides committed with a gun. In every one of those cases, some innocent person did die. So it hardly seems fair to count one DGU of scaring away drunken teenage vandals as having the same value as a 5-year old kid who finds his father’s gun and shoots himself dead. So comparing 2.5 million DGUs to 31,000 innocent gun deaths is comparing apples to oranges.

On one hand thisbwas the first google result… well second, as the first was only DGU against active shooters and not as all encomoassing as this seemed at quick glance.

Unfortunately people like me and you live in very different mental worlds. I am in grouos etc so that I see almost daily the newest incident of someone stopping a crime. One magazibe I get puts 5-10 incidents a month of people in DGU. Since it is a political issue they do lean mostly toward the elderly and women. So if we show these thing it is the same game the other side plays… meh I hate games but sometimes there is a point.

I know what I read. I know that one such article was a 12 yr old well trained girl who shot a grown home invading rapist man.

You say that “some” people sometimes can maybe sort of deserve a gun.

I blame every death that did not need to happen on the mentality of those on your side.

You blame every death that results from an accident on my side.

We both agree that if either side wins some bad guys will still get guns and kill people, some will make bombs and use knives…

Really whoever wins according to that the other side has every reason to view the opposition as responsibke for the death of the innocent I suppose.

But as SilverShadow said, the kid whos parents let them accidently shoot themselves are often the same kids who are prone to find the myriad of other dangers.

So I do believe wholeheartedly that the day your side wins, far more innocent lives are lost, first from criminals and later from genocides.

Hence why the strong opposition since to me what you are selling is much like abortion, it sounds like a moral thing to some, but to me it sounds like the murder of millions of innocents.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Did you enjoy the fireworks?

Yup.

if we allow government to pick and choose which enumerated right they can confiscate, then they will be able to pick and choose any of them.

Well, I didn’t say we should allow the government to pick and choose arbitrarily. There are some rights that one must resist being infringed. Other rights, we as individuals can let the government decide (hopefully with (name removed by moderator)ut from the people).

this has become evident in the recent House and Senate bills regarding due process. Some are not only willing but intent on confiscating due process rights for anyone on the no-fly list, and terror watch list.

I agree that such measures violate due process. Being on a no-fly or terror watch list is not proof of wrongdoing. I think I was on such a list briefly because I once flew a small plane too close to a Bush campaign event. So I can sympathize.

We either believe in the presumption of innocence or we don’t. It is obvious some in Congress don’t.

The only gun laws I would support are those that treat everyone in a given area the same, except for those for whom due process has been rendered, like the mentally ill.

 

[JonNC]

A health insurance policy is not going to accidentally go off and kill my child. But a gun might. Buying a gun “just in case I need a gun” carries more risk than buying a health insurance policy “just in case I get sick”.

I promise. My guns will not accidentally go off an kill your child. And you are afraid that a gun in your house will, then don’t own one, or store it off site. It is also the case that guns do not go off by themselves. Properly secured guns do not kill kids. Again, it is immoral in my view to confiscate the rights of all because of the mistakes or crimes of others.

Jon