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

[SilverShadow22]

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.

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

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.

It’s absolutely a fallacy. A kid getting into ANYTHING they should not is plain and simply a parenting deficiency. If my personal experience means nothing, then no amount of stories from you about tragic child gun deaths means anything either. Either anecdotes count… Or they don’t. All I proved is that a parent with authority and supervision can make the child understand what you don’t touch and why.

Actually, no, I don’t necessarily agree with keeping the ‘mentally ill’ from having guns. Because who gets to decide the definition of ‘ill’? They’re already redefining perverted behavior into normalcy, and normal behavior as unacceptable. In one sense, I agree; no truly unstable person should have a weapon… But that’s ALL weapons. Not just guns. And if they’re that bad, they shouldn’t be unsupervised anyway. But simply being Christian is getting very close to being labeled a mental ‘illness’ so no, I don’t fully accept that as valid.

The problem is that you are focusing on the ‘harm’ of guns to the point that you think it outweighs the good. This is basically a matter of preference, and preferences can’t be argued. We are never, ever going to agree.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s absolutely a fallacy. A kid getting into ANYTHING they should not is plain and simply a parenting deficiency.

Oh, I agree with that. But the question is, what should be done when a parent exhibits such a deficiency and leaves loaded guns lying around where his kid can get a hold of them? Are we to just stand aside and say “Tsk, tsk. Bad parenting. To bad for that kid.”? Or do we have a responsibility to protect that kid from bad parenting? And if we do have the responsibility of protecting that kid, isn’t taking the guns away from the parent a legitimate option?

If my personal experience means nothing, then no amount of stories from you about tragic child gun deaths means anything either.

OK, let’s decide policy based on a logical combination of all the data - not just anecdotes.

Actually, no, I don’t necessarily agree with keeping the ‘mentally ill’ from having guns. Because who gets to decide the definition of ‘ill’? They’re already redefining perverted behavior into normalcy, and normal behavior as unacceptable. In one sense, I agree; no truly unstable person should have a weapon… But that’s ALL weapons. Not just guns. And if they’re that bad, they shouldn’t be unsupervised anyway.

Your approach introduces more infringement of liberty than is necessary because you are establishing coarse, one-size fits all thresholds, rather than finer distinctions that offer more freedom to those capable of exercising that freedom responsibly. You would say that either a person is deeded competent, in which case he is allowed all the privileges of having a gun, or else incompetent, in which case he is not allowed to even hold a knife when he eats. That is way coarser than it needs to be, and will result in many people being denied the dignity of feeding themselves just because they can’t be trusted to carry a gun.

The problem is that you are focusing on the ‘harm’ of guns to the point that you think it outweighs the good.

I think in many cases the harm does not outweigh the good. In those cases, I support gun ownership.

This is basically a matter of preference, and preferences can’t be argued. We are never, ever going to agree.

It is much more than a matter of preferences. It is a question that can be debated with reasoned arguments - many of which have been presented right here in this thread. I don’t think anyone on either side of this debate has said “I (like/dislike) guns because I just do!”.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Oh, I agree with that. But the question is, what should be done when a parent exhibits such a deficiency and leaves loaded guns lying around where his kid can get a hold of them? Are we to just stand aside and say “Tsk, tsk. Bad parenting. To bad for that kid.”? Or do we have a responsibility to protect that kid from bad parenting? And if we do have the responsibility of protecting that kid, isn’t taking the guns away from the parent a legitimate option?

The law already addresses this as negligent homicide which is a felony which means you lose your gun rights.

Your approach introduces more infringement of liberty than is necessary because you are establishing coarse, one-size fits all thresholds, rather than finer distinctions that offer more freedom to those capable of exercising that freedom responsibly. You would say that either a person is deeded competent, in which case he is allowed all the privileges of having a gun, or else incompetent, in which case he is not allowed to even hold a knife when he eats. That is way coarser than it needs to be, and will result in many people being denied the dignity of feeding themselves just because they can’t be trusted to carry a gun.

The problem is that those finer distinctions gradually get expanded over time. This just what governments do. We thought the Patriot Act gave the government the authority to watch terrorists. It turns out that the government was watching everyone as if they were criminals.

It is much more than a matter of preferences. It is a question that can be debated with reasoned arguments - many of which have been presented right here in this thread. I don’t think anyone on either side of this debate has said “I (like/dislike) guns because I just do!”.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Oh, I agree with that. But the question is, what should be done when a parent exhibits such a deficiency and leaves loaded guns lying around where his kid can get a hold of them? Are we to just stand aside and say “Tsk, tsk. Bad parenting. To bad for that kid.”? Or do we have a responsibility to protect that kid from bad parenting? And if we do have the responsibility of protecting that kid, isn’t taking the guns away from the parent a legitimate option?

Taking the kid away seems mor logical. Can’t trust them with guns, can’t trust them with knives.

OK, let’s decide policy based on a logical combination of all the data - not just anecdotes.

But your tried to discredit my anecdote with one of your own.

Your approach introduces more infringement of liberty than is necessary because you are establishing coarse, one-size fits all thresholds, rather than finer distinctions that offer more freedom to those capable of exercising that freedom responsibly. You would say that either a person is deeded competent, in which case he is allowed all the privileges of having a gun, or else incompetent, in which case he is not allowed to even hold a knife when he eats. That is way coarser than it needs to be, and will result in many people being denied the dignity of feeding themselves just because they can’t be trusted to carry a gun.

I’m saying that I inherently do not, and never will, trust pretty much anyone setting themselves up to make that distinction, especially once they get comfortable with such power.

I think in many cases the harm does not outweigh the good. In those cases, I support gun ownership

.

I think that the scales you’re using are weighted to the side of overcaution, and perhaps even pacifism.

It is much more than a matter of preferences. It is a question that can be debated with reasoned arguments - many of which have been presented right here in this thread. I don’t think anyone on either side of this debate has said “I (like/dislike) guns because I just do!”.

What you and the following poster misunderstood by my use of the word ‘preference’, is you PREFER to weigh the ‘good and ill’ by a different standard than I do.

Hence no amount of constantly disputed ‘facts’ is going to win.

No one has said 'just ‘cuz I don’t like/am scared of guns’ on this thread as yet, but I’ve heard it plenty in real life.

 

[pnewton]

What that means is that armed agents of the state will be sent out enforce that law. They will take weapons without the consent of the owners and if those owners resist, they will kill them.

No, some control by the government on weapons does not men armed agents of the state… None of the nouns or verbs match.

Also, the whole premise is just weird. There is no way any amount of unrestricted gun ownership, or ownership of other weapons by an individual or family would stand against a trained and better equipped military. If the idea of owning more, bigger and better guns is to withstand a tyrant with them, then the one that will be killed will be the David Koresh’s and Randy Weaver’s of the world. Since when has any of these incidents involving even massive armament build up go well for the person who was hoarding illegal arms?

 

[pnewton]

No, they didn’t. What the people through the constitution established was a protection of that right, not its establishment.

Self defense IS a right ordained by God. You can’t defend yourself if you’re limited to pop guns while everyone else has real weaponry.

First, as a reminder, the issue is background checks, not gun ownership. We probably mostly agree here. But I do not know that I accept the premise that gun ownership (much less unlimited gun ownership) is a moral right. Self-defense is a moral right. However, it was a right before the invention of the gun. Now we have even more powerful weapons, such as nuclear weapons. Yet we all agree it is not a moral right to own the most powerful possible weapon, just because we have the right to self-defense. Therefore, it would seem that degree to which we have the “right” to own a weapon in support of our right of self-defense is not absolute.

Something else to consider, our respect for life also means we should consider self-defense that is less than lethal, when such alternatives are available. I know that this is not an option for all, but for those who can utilize such an option, it is a more moral position, and practically lessens the possibility of a tragic and life-altering misuse of a firearm. I admit I am biased toward this option.

 

[pnewton]

Taking the kid away seems mor logical. Can’t trust them with guns, can’t trust them with knives.

I take it you are not a parent. No, you cannot trust kids, as a general rule, to behave like responsible adults. There is no place to “take them away” to where this axiom will not exist. That is why parents have to know that a gun that is readily available (outside of being on one’s person) usually means a varying degree of hazard to children. Anyone who does not understand this does not need to be a gun-owning parent.

 

[JonNC]

First, as a reminder, the issue is background checks, not gun ownership. We probably mostly agree here. But I do not know that I accept the premise that gun ownership (much less unlimited gun ownership) is a moral right. Self-defense is a moral right. However, it was a right before the invention of the gun. Now we have even more powerful weapons, such as nuclear weapons. Yet we all agree it is not a moral right to own the most powerful possible weapon, just because we have the right to self-defense. Therefore, it would seem that degree to which we have the “right” to own a weapon in support of our right of self-defense is not absolute.

Something else to consider, our respect for life also means we should consider self-defense that is less than lethal, when such alternatives are available. I know that this is not an option for all, but for those who can utilize such an option, it is a more moral position, and practically lessens the possibility of a tragic and life-altering misuse of a firearm. I admit I am biased toward this option.

While I disagree entirely that gun ownership is not a right - I think there is no doubt that it is- I am in general agreement that lethal defense ought not be the first choice if others are available. That doesn’t mean that government should have the power to eliminate the lethal option. I own a handgun for self defense in the home, but our first defense is our large shepherd dog whose bark is significant, but I clearly have the right to that last line of defense. Furthermore, the right is not solely related to self defense, as the constitution makes clear. That makes the right absolute, though again, not unlimited. And this absolutel right is moral when exercised properly.

Jon

 

[SilverShadow22]

I take it you are not a parent. No, you cannot trust kids, as a general rule, to behave like responsible adults. There is no place to “take them away” to where this axiom will not exist. That is why parents have to know that a gun that is readily available (outside of being on one’s person) usually means a varying degree of hazard to children. Anyone who does not understand this does not need to be a gun-owning parent.

Oh for…

If the parent is irresponsible enough to leave guns laying around the house, then the *kids need taken from the parent. * And said parent could not then be trusted to keep even knives away from the children.

The poster to whom I was responding implied that children are safe from an irresponsible parent if guns are forbidden to the parent.

I replied, if the parenting is THAT BAD, then taking the kid from the parent altogether seems more logical than taking away access to guns. Which is impossible to guarantee, regardless.

… Not that I particularly like the state’s power to define a ‘fit parent’, either.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

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

You have the right to free speech but I think if you demanded to use it during a movie in a cinema then you would have that right curtailed. Rights are never absolute.

 

[JonNC]

You have the right to free speech but I think if you demanded to use it during a movie in a cinema then you would have that right curtailed. Rights are never absolute.

Rights are absolute. Abuse of them where others rights are diminished becomes license.

Jon

 

[starshiptrooper]

No, some control by the government on weapons does not men armed agents of the state… None of the nouns or verbs match.

Yes it does. Law enFORCEment will ensure compliance with those laws.

Also, the whole premise is just weird. There is no way any amount of unrestricted gun ownership, or ownership of other weapons by an individual or family would stand against a trained and better equipped military. If the idea of owning more, bigger and better guns is to withstand a tyrant with them, then the one that will be killed will be the David Koresh’s and Randy Weaver’s of the world. Since when has any of these incidents involving even massive armament build up go well for the person who was hoarding illegal arms?

That explains both the Russian victory in Afghanistan and the American victory in Vietnam right?

You have the right to free speech but I think if you demanded to use it during a movie in a cinema then you would have that right curtailed. Rights are never absolute.

The owner of a private theater has the right to let you in or kick you out and his permission is contingent on your good behavior. However, if the government would try to regulate your speech, that would be very problematic.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

.That explains both the Russian victory in Afghanistan and the American victory in Vietnam right?

Those were both instances of organized armed forces, using weapons of the sort that not even the NRA would say should be allowed for the general public.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

Yes it does. Law enFORCEment will ensure compliance with those laws.That explains both the Russian victory in Afghanistan and the American victory in Vietnam right?The owner of a private theater has the right to let you in or kick you out and his permission is contingent on your good behavior. However, if the government would try to regulate your speech, that would be very problematic.

We have had lots of rights during history but many of them have had to be removed or amended. Things evolve.

 

[Peccavi]

Today in Dallas the USA is suffering the effects of their love of guns. Do not blame those who use guns but those who make a profit from guns. As Jesus said those who live by the sword (weapons) die by the swords. Jesus never owned a sword. He would not have owned a gun. How Christians can carry weapons that take lives has always struck me a the highest form of indifference to Jesus teaching of brotherhood and peace.

 

[JonNC]

We have had lots of rights during history but many of them have had to be removed or amended. Things evolve.

The greatest danger to rights is the idea that they evolve, or more accurately, can be evolved. We can see this currently in how religious free exercise is slowly “being evolved” into a right to worship only.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Those were both instances of organized armed forces, using weapons of the sort that not even the NRA would say should be allowed for the general public.

To call the Mujahideen an organized armed force is a bit of a stretch.

Jon

 

[LethalMouse]

Today in Dallas the USA is suffering the effects of their love of guns. Do not blame those who use guns but those who make a profit from guns. As Jesus said those who live by the sword (weapons) die by the swords. Jesus never owned a sword. He would not have owned a gun. How Christians can carry weapons that take lives has always struck me a the highest form of indifference to Jesus teaching of brotherhood and peace.

Superman never owned a gun.

It is a pretty bad comparison…When you can destroy an army of 10,000 with a wave of your hand carrying a sword/gun would be a waste of time to strap it on.

Indifference?

So then logically you disagree with the CCC about the use of force to stop evil???

 

[LethalMouse]

You have the right to free speech but I think if you demanded to use it during a movie in a cinema then you would have that right curtailed. Rights are never absolute.

It is not a law

Free speech is law…

You can chose to own a gun or not

on my property I can say you can’t come over with or without a gun at my leisure.

 

[JonNC]

Today in Dallas the USA is suffering the effects of their love of guns. Do not blame those who use guns but those who make a profit from guns. As Jesus said those who live by the sword (weapons) die by the swords. Jesus never owned a sword. He would not have owned a gun. How Christians can carry weapons that take lives has always struck me a the highest form of indifference to Jesus teaching of brotherhood and peace.

No. Blame those who use guns in this way. They are solely at fault. All by themselves.
I would assume you, as a citizen of the UK, think US guns were okay when the Yanks came across the pond in WWI and WW II.

Jon