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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
That is true, in as much as the common good should not come at the expense of unjustly depriving any individuals of their inherent human rights. But after that condition has been met, there still remains the possibility that some individuals will not like what is decided for them, such as the raising of taxes. That does not necessarily constitute the denial of inherent human rights. And therefore it may be a valid expression of the common good.
Click to expand...
I agree. Taxes are not necessarily a violation of inherent individual rights, though they do become immoral when spent on denial of rights, such as abortion.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
That doesn’t answer my question, but it doesn’t matter . If a carpenter’s hammer is in his belt, is it pointless? How about my cell phone in its belt clip?
A holstered firearm, like a sword in its scabbard, like a hammer or phone, is readily available if need arises.
If an armed intruder is pointing a gun at my wife, you can bet I won’t wait for him to kill her. If a marine sees an enemy but waits until his buddy is shot before he shoots, there should be a court Marshall waiting for him.
Yours is an absolute misreading of Christian teaching.

Jon
Click to expand...
Sorry, but wasn’t that per Obama’s ‘rules of engagement’ for the past 7 yrs.
 
Who is in charge of common sense? Obama? Hillary? the UN? Sharia Law…

According to them Catholic Christians could be considered “haters” because we believe in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As it regards to all the questionable SOGI stuff (sexual orientation gender identification), traditional marriage and right to life issues (abortion, abortifacients, contraception, embryonic, stem cell research, end of life issues, assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc, etc, etc…) We are a minority yet we are not treated like one.

They may put “haters” on the list. Then you are on the list unless you become a non-practicing Catholic in order to “fit in”. (Joe Biden, etc.)

Who controls the list??? That is the issue.

And in these times, I don’t like the idea of list makers.
 
migueltojose said:
Who is in charge of common sense? Obama? Hillary? the UN? Sharia Law…
.
Click to expand...
Apparently Texas is in charge of that. Against the advice of all the college administrators and on the anniversary of one the first mass shootings on campus in their state, Texas has decided that it is a good idea to have students packing heat in classrooms now!
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Apparently Texas is in charge of that. Against the advice of all the college administrators and on the anniversary of one the first mass shootings on campus in their state, Texas has decided that it is a good idea to have students packing heat in classrooms now!
Click to expand...
Many college administrators, perhaps most, are left-wing statists, the fifty year anniversary of the Texas tower shooting, while interesting, is irrelevant, and saying, “packing heat” for possessing a means of self-defense bespeaks a strong bias. You should also consider that only students who have reached the age of twenty-one, or are in military service, and have passed a background check will be eligible to carry a concealed firearm. Honest statistical studies belie the purported purpose of gun-control. It is really an ideological agenda item related to the imposition of global governance. IMHO
 
Bill1940 said:
Many college administrators, perhaps most, are left-wing statists…
Click to expand...
And with one stroke you discount the view of all college presidents! Amazing that you can do that so casually.
the fifty year anniversary of the Texas tower shooting, while interesting, is irrelevant
Click to expand...
Yes, but still ironic…
and saying, “packing heat” for possessing a means of self-defense bespeaks a strong bias.
Click to expand...
OK, now with one fell swoop you have effectively discounted anything that I have said too. Well done!
You should also consider that only students who have reached the age of twenty-one, or are in military service, and have passed a background check will be eligible to carry a concealed firearm.
Click to expand...
And these people never make mistakes, mishandle their gun, misplace it, or get angry and shoot it inappropriately…
Honest statistical studies belie the purported purpose of gun-control.
Click to expand...
What statistical studies are there that having students carry guns to class makes the student body safer as a whole? I know the theory is that if some mass shooting should happen on campus, some student with a gun will come to the resuce and stop the shooter sooner and save lives. But how many times has that happened? Is it statistically supported? If you can’t support your statistic theory, you shouldn’t criticize gun control for its lack of statistical evidence.
 
By statistics, I mean statistics about gun-control in general. I suspect that debating with you on this topic and others such as climate alarmism, would be a futile effort. It would probably be prudent to just agree to disagree. I’m rather conservative and traditional in my views, and tend to highly regard the Principle of Subsidiarity, and self-governance generally. So let’s just wish each other God’s blessings, and leave the argument aside.
 
Bill1940 said:
By statistics, I mean statistics about gun-control in general. I suspect that debating with you on this topic and others such as climate alarmism, would be a futile effort. It would probably be prudent to just agree to disagree. I’m rather conservative and traditional in my views, and tend to highly regard the Principle of Subsidiarity, and self-governance generally. So let’s just wish each other God’s blessings, and leave the argument aside.
Click to expand...
OK - for now.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What statistical studies are there that having students carry guns to class makes the student body safer as a whole? I know the theory is that if some mass shooting should happen on campus, some student with a gun will come to the resuce and stop the shooter sooner and save lives. But how many times has that happened? Is it statistically supported? If you can’t support your statistic theory, you shouldn’t criticize gun control for its lack of statistical evidence.
Click to expand...
The more likely scenarios would be protection against robbery, assault or rape. FYI, many preventative measure are not clearly justified by statistics, like I always have a spare tire in my car though I’ve never actually needed it.
 
Theo520 said:
The more likely scenarios would be protection against robbery, assault or rape.
Click to expand...
There isn’t much of that in college classrooms. And that was what I was challenging - the Texas law permitting students to carry guns into class.
FYI, many preventative measure are not clearly justified by statistics, like I always have a spare tire in my car though I’ve never actually needed it.
Click to expand...
Actually you can justify a spare tire with statistics. Just take the probability of having a flat over a 10-year period multiplied by the cost of not having a spare (calling a tow truck, missing your appointment, etc). Compare that to the cost of maintaining a spare tire over those 10 years.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There isn’t much of that in college classrooms. And that was what I was challenging - the Texas law permitting students to carry guns into class.

Actually you can justify a spare tire with statistics. Just take the probability of having a flat over a 10-year period multiplied by the cost of not having a spare (calling a tow truck, missing your appointment, etc). Compare that to the cost of maintaining a spare tire over those 10 years.
Click to expand...
I expect the gun is primarly for protection before and after class, but they should also have that right during class and schools won’t install gun lockers outside the class rooms.

I can readily justify a gun with statistics, since I value my life very highly.
 
Mintaka said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
No but you do have to undergo vigorous training to obtain a license to drive your car. And once obtained it can be revoked or restricted for any number of offenses.
 
Theo520 said:
The more likely scenarios would be protection against robbery, assault or rape. FYI, many preventative measure are not clearly justified by statistics, like I always have a spare tire in my car though I’ve never actually needed it.
Click to expand...
The pertinent debate is not about the rights or wrong of an individual having such “protection”, but about what are the consequences of wide availability of guns, enabling millions and millions of people to be armed in our modern society.

There are a few arguments posed:
  1. It’s a right! Damn the consequences - it’s a right!!
  2. The foreseeable consequences are not good - and so, regardless of right or not, we should not enable it.
  3. The foreseeable consequences are good - and, heh, it’s also a right, so go for it!
🤷
 
starshiptrooper said:
If you or anybody else does not want to be affected by my gun, do not infringe on my life, my liberty, or my property. It is not that hard. 🤷
Click to expand...
That is not the only scenario in which your gun could unjustly affect another life. You could:
  1. Misplace your gun so an unqualified person (like a child) gets it.
  2. Fire your gun accidentally.
  3. Have your gun stolen by criminals.
  4. Get angry and shoot someone in a rage.
Statistically, all these things do happen.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That is not the only scenario in which your gun could unjustly affect another life. You could:
  1. Misplace your gun so an unqualified person (like a child) gets it.
  2. Fire your gun accidentally.
  3. Have your gun stolen by criminals.
  4. Get angry and shoot someone in a rage.
Statistically, all these things do happen.
Click to expand...
I keep my gun locked up and I take firearms safety seriously.

As for getting angry and shooting someone, I understand that is completely opposed to my self interests, so there is no motive to do that.

While we are talking about things that happen statistically, guns are routinely used to stop criminals. That does not even touch the fact that firearms deter crime as criminals are disinclined to attack an armed person.
 
starshiptrooper said:
I keep my gun locked up and I take firearms safety seriously.
Click to expand...
You do. But does every gun owner?
As for getting angry and shooting someone, I understand that is completely opposed to my self interests, so there is no motive to do that.
Click to expand...
Yet people still do it occasionally.
While we are talking about things that happen statistically, guns are routinely used to stop criminals. That does not even touch the fact that firearms deter crime as criminals are disinclined to attack an armed person.
Click to expand...
Since we are talking about statistics, do you claim that guns stop or deter criminals more often than they are discharged by accident or in anger?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You do. But does every gun owner?
Click to expand...
I am not every gun owner, but guess what? We do have laws addressing that behavior.
Yet people still do it occasionally.
Click to expand...
People also use other objects foolishly. We do not outlaw those objects, we target the behavior. Why are guns magically different?
Since we are talking about statistics, do you claim that guns stop or deter criminals more often than they are discharged by accident or in anger?
Click to expand...
You are the one claiming they cause more harm than good, the burden of proof is on you.
 
Interesting to Google about the old wild west days…city leaders seemed to be sick of the number of killings and were calling for stricter gun control…some cow towns even banned the wearing of guns in town…fast forward 150 years or so and we’ve advanced as a society to allowing college kids to carry guns in class…that’s real progress :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top