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

[JonNC]

Okay. I guess everyone has their own opinion. If you think America is enough like Nazi Germany and yet believe we should teach combat to our “American Youth” then that is for you to reconcile.

Your posts have done nothing but convince me all the more that we need to restrict the sale of guns from both the convicted and the mentally ill, through a series of background checks and a data base of the mentally ill. I also see the reasoning for the ATF stepping in, even at the risk of loss of life to stop illegal stockpiles of arms by fringe extremists.

If they are illegal stockpiles, then with the proper warrant, law enforcement should step in
Any data base of the mentally ill should be based on adjudication, just as is the case with criminals.

Jon

 

[PatrickKennedy]

No. They need to know they are tools with specific uses and that special training is needed to handle them. They are not toys. They can be dangerous, and should not be handled without an adult present. As the Eddie Eagle Program says if you see a gun: stop, don’t touch, leave the area, tell an adult.
Guns are not evil. Guns have their place in a free society. Children need to know that.

Jon

I’ll tweet your final thoughts next time there is a terrible tragedy in a school

 

[JonNC]

I’ll tweet your final thoughts next time there is a terrible tragedy in a school

The next time there is a terrible tragedy in a school, it could be the one I teach in. I don’t need anyone preaching to me the risks those of us who are responsible for children face in a so-called gun-free zone. But fear not, I have a yardstick to protect the children with, since that’s all the anti-freedom types want us to have.
Firearms are not evil. They are tools, just like fertilizer is not evil, regardless of how it was used in Oklahoma City.

Teach kids to respect tools. Teach them the dangers a firearm poses, as well as the positive aspects they possess - self defense, target sports, hunting, etc.

Jon

 

[pnewton]

I do believe in vigorous background checks and closing any loopholes in purchasing guns. HOWEVER, a database for the mentally ill is controversial. First, which mentally ill? They must be clearly defined as posing a danger to others or to themselves since not all mentally ill people are dangerous. Second, the mentally ill are already stigmatized too much in terms of employment and so on. Third, who will have access to this database? Finally, how many people become mentally ill AFTER they purchase weapons: are there any statistics on this?

For starters, we could use existing databases of those receiving care through governmental programs. Second, we could provide a mechanism of approval for firearm purchase by a simple objective violation. Searches need provide nothing but a yes or no. It is not perfect, but it would be better than nothing, as far as safety for society is concerned.

 

[Bill1940]

Here is an interesting perspective, that of Sir Walter Raleigh who pointed out that it was a basic principle of a tyrant “to unarm his people of weapons, money, and all means whereby they resist his power”. Source: Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of history, Bentley College.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

The next time there is a terrible tragedy in a school, it could be the one I teach in. I don’t need anyone preaching to me the risks those of us who are responsible for children face in a so-called gun-free zone. But fear not, I have a yardstick to protect the children with, since that’s all the anti-freedom types want us to have.
Firearms are not evil. They are tools, just like fertilizer is not evil, regardless of how it was used in Oklahoma City.

Teach kids to respect tools. Teach them the dangers a firearm poses, as well as the positive aspects they possess - self defense, target sports, hunting, etc.

Jon

Well you tweet your final sentence in your post and gauge the reaction

 

[JonNC]

Well you tweet your final sentence in your post and gauge the reaction

ISTM that taking things out of context is a strategy necessary to compensate for a poor argument.

Jon

 

[PatrickKennedy]

ISTM that taking things out of context is a strategy necessary to compensate for a poor argument.

Jon

I think arguing against a modicum of control over gun ownership is the poorest arguement ever

 

[JonNC]

I think arguing against a modicum of control over gun ownership is the poorest arguement ever

I haven’t done that in the slightest. What I have argued for is the constitutionally protected right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and that right not be infringed. I have on this thread supported the NICS as a reasonable system of preventing criminals from legally buying firearms. I have no problem with the 80 year old limits one automatic weapons.

If you wish to dialogue I respectfully request that you not misrepresent my positions.

Jon

 

[PatrickKennedy]

I haven’t done that in the slightest. What I have argued for is the constitutionally protected right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and that right not be infringed. I have on this thread supported the NICS as a reasonable system of preventing criminals from legally buying firearms. I have no problem with the 80 year old limits one automatic weapons.

If you wish to dialogue I respectfully request that you not misrepresent my positions.

Jon

I can’t begin to comprehend why anyone would support this ‘right’ when such large numbers of people are killed by guns legal or illegal. Perhaps if such strenuous efforts went into mass detection of illegal arms and the destruction of all weaponry in the hands of the public at least a few lives might be spared. Just do the maths.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It is not the teaching of Jesus that is ignored. Jesus did not teach on gun ownership. Saying that Jesus did not own a gun is meaningless on so many levels. It is the worst case of an argument from silence I have ever seen. For example, Jesus also did not live in England so Christians should not live in England. See, it makes not sense.

Jesus never spoke in English.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Okay. I guess everyone has their own opinion. If you think America is enough like Nazi Germany and yet believe we should teach combat to our “American Youth” then that is for you to reconcile.

Strawman argument (again). Another poster expressed incredulity over the idea that a government could abuse its power. I just gave a few examples. I did not say anything about the current status of the United States of America.

 

[JonNC]

I can’t begin to comprehend why anyone would support this ‘right’ when such large numbers of people are killed by guns legal or illegal. Perhaps if such strenuous efforts went into mass detection of illegal arms and the destruction of all weaponry in the hands of the public at least a few lives might be spared. Just do the maths.

Well, first, right doesn’t need quotes. It is a protected right. It is not guns that are the problem. Guns have always been an important part of our culture. Growing up in the 50’s and 60’s , one never heard of mass shootings, and guns were more readily attainable then. By the early 90’s things changed, but even compared to then, gun homicides are fewer now The facts are out there.
Guns are not the problem, people are. Inner cities, many of them with strict gun laws, not coincidentally, have greater rates of gun violence. We’ve done a pathetic job of responding to terrorism in the last eight years, such that it has arrived at our shores. That’s not a gun issue, as Paris and Brussels are obvious examples. Radical Islamic terrorists will get guns, regardless of efforts to disarm the law-abiding.

Your desire to disarm the law-abiding public implies beliefs you must have for this to make sense.

1. the law-abiding citizens are by and large evil and cannot be trusted with arms. OTOH, people in government are good, and can be trusted with arms. History does not bear this out. In fact, the opposite is true.
2. removing guns from the law-abiding will make it more difficult for terrorists to get guns. Nonsense.
3. that law enforcement will regularly protect the weak and vulnerable, now that they are disarmed. The SCOTUS has ruled we cannot and should not expect that.
4. disarming the law-abiding means criminals will comply with these new laws. Inner city governments have proved themselves incompetent in disarming criminals
5. finally, that law-abiding guns owners in the U.S. will simply turn their weapons and their rights in. Unlikely.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Here is an interesting perspective, that of Sir Walter Raleigh who pointed out that it was a basic principle of a tyrant “to unarm his people of weapons, money, and all means whereby they resist his power”. Source: Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of history, Bentley College.

It is task number one for a tyrant, and one can identify a tyrant wannabe as soon as they propose gun limits on the law-abiding that are precursors for confiscation. It is the tyrant wannabe that proposes extreme taxation on arms or ammo, or laws that permit or encourage the suing of manufacturers for the crimes of the possessor in an attempt to drive them out of business.

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

Well, first, right doesn’t need quotes. It is a protected right. It is not guns that are the problem. Guns have always been an important part of our culture. Growing up in the 50’s and 60’s , one never heard of mass shootings, and guns were more readily attainable then. By the early 90’s things changed, but even compared to then, gun homicides are fewer now The facts are out there.
Guns are not the problem, people are. Inner cities, many of them with strict gun laws, not coincidentally, have greater rates of gun violence. We’ve done a pathetic job of responding to terrorism in the last eight years, such that it has arrived at our shores. That’s not a gun issue, as Paris and Brussels are obvious examples. Radical Islamic terrorists will get guns, regardless of efforts to disarm the law-abiding.

Your desire to disarm the law-abiding public implies beliefs you must have for this to make sense.

1. the law-abiding citizens are by and large evil and cannot be trusted with arms. OTOH, people in government are good, and can be trusted with arms. History does not bear this out. In fact, the opposite is true.
2. removing guns from the law-abiding will make it more difficult for terrorists to get guns. Nonsense.
3. that law enforcement will regularly protect the weak and vulnerable, now that they are disarmed. The SCOTUS has ruled we cannot and should not expect that.
4. disarming the law-abiding means criminals will comply with these new laws. Inner city governments have proved themselves incompetent in disarming criminals
5. finally, that law-abiding guns owners in the U.S. will simply turn their weapons and their rights in. Unlikely.

Jon

That’s mischievous presentation. It’s not about disarming the law abiding - it’s about reducing the ease by which weapons (dangerous goods) can be acquired. The widespread and easy availability of weapons adds to the supply accessible by those with bad intentions and those who for whatever reason ought not be accessing guns. Many, many law abiding folks can see the greater good thus promoted. (Look at the current state of the poll at the top of this thread!)

And the proper course is to review the decisions of the framers, and the constitution, through the proper constitutional process.

 

[LucyEm]

It is task number one for a tyrant, and one can identify a tyrant wannabe as soon as they propose gun limits on the law-abiding that are precursors for confiscation. It is the tyrant wannabe that proposes extreme taxation on arms or ammo, or laws that permit or encourage the suing of manufacturers for the crimes of the possessor in an attempt to drive them out of business.

Jon

Is that the charitable interpretation? Do you think I’m a tyrant wannabe too Jon? And Leaf? And Rau? Is it possible for you to concede that perhaps we, along with numerous of our fellow citizens, presidents and representatives, might just believe there is s better model for our society? Are all who disagree with you on this issue “wannabe tyrants”. Or will you assign some other label?

Confiscation (implying an absence of compensation) of legally purchased weapons ought never arise. If surrender of private property arises, it would be with compensation, as is the case when one’s land is acquired for a road, dam or similar.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Is that the charitable interpretation? Do you think I’m a tyrant wannabe too Jon? And Leaf? And Rau? Is it possible for you to concede that perhaps we, along with numerous of our fellow citizens, presidents and representatives, might just believe there is s better model for our society? Are all who disagree with you on this issue “wannabe tyrants”. Or will you assign some other label?

While I do not speak for Jon, I do not think that is your intention. That does not mean that you are not making a tyrant’s job that much easier. Intentions matter, but so do results.

Confiscation (implying an absence of compensation) of legally purchased weapons ought never arise. If surrender of private property arises, it would be with compensation, as is the case when one’s land is acquired for a road, dam or similar.

What happens if I refuse the compensation and refuse to give up my weapons?

 

[Rau]

While I do not speak for Jon, I do not think that is your intention. That does not mean that you are not making a tyrant’s job that much easier. Intentions matter, but so do results.What happens if I refuse the compensation and refuse to give up my weapons?

I would expect the law to be enforced. Nothing new there, is there?

PS. I’m back!

 

[starshiptrooper]

I would expect the law to be enforced. Nothing new there, is there?

So you are willing to send men with guns after someone who has not victimized anyone else because guns are dangerous. Something does not add up there.

:ehh:

 

[Rau]

So you are willing to send men with guns after someone who has not victimized anyone else because guns are dangerous. Something does not add up there.

:ehh:

Are you familiar with the law? The one that requires you to drive slowly on empty highways, and which provides for armed police to deal with you if you don’t. The one that does not allow you to keep certain dangerous goods in your house. Or to possess, or purchase or consume or transport certain substances. The one that sees armed men pull over and approach a good driver because his tail light is broken. The law. Arrived at in accordance with all due process, as has been proposed by me, Lucy and Leaf.