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

[LeafByNiggle]

I am not every gun owner, but guess what? We do have laws addressing that behavior.

Yes. Gun control laws. Laws which you oppose.

People also use other objects foolishly. We do not outlaw those objects, we target the behavior. Why are guns magically different?

It doesn’t take any magic. Guns are quantitatively more dangerous than many of the objects that might also be used in a harmful manner. Regulations take into account probabilities. The probability of a kid finding a gun in the house and killing his neighbor in play is much higher than the probability of that same kid finding a kitchen knife and killing his playmate. So we don’t regulate kitchen knives, but we do regulate guns.

You are the one claiming they cause more harm than good, the burden of proof is on you.

I was referring to this unsolicited comment that you made:

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.

So it seems you are the one making a statistical claim. I was just challenging you to back it up statistically and quantitatively. And don’t say the burden is on me to prove you wrong.

 

[Theo520]

LeafByNiggle;14090538]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.
   This is basic gun safety and why such occurrences are so rare given the dispersion of legal guns. Drowning is a much higher risk, and there are far fewer pools
2. Fire your gun accidentally.
   **This is extremely rare with legal owners, and eliminated by training.

**3. Have your gun stolen by criminals.
**Yes, a valid risk but I’d rather be armed to confront the criminal.
**
4. Get angry and shoot someone in a rage.
A rare occurrence by legal gun owners, mostly a problem with gangs and illegal ownership.

Statistically, all these things do happen.
Statistically, 1, 2, & 4 are rare with legal gun owners.
Your best argument is for mandatory training

 

[Rau]

You are the one claiming they cause more harm than good, the burden of proof is on you.

Actually, that one cuts both way. Your position is to rely on a belief that widespread gun ownership causes more good than harm. Because if that were not so, to promote widespread ownership would be immoral. So there is an onus on you too to demonstrate the the greater good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your best argument is for mandatory training.

Can I get you to go on record as endorsing such a measure?

 

[Rau]

LeafByNiggle;14090538]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.
   This is basic gun safety and why such occurrences are so rare given the dispersion of legal guns. Drowning is a much higher risk, and there are far fewer pools
2. Fire your gun accidentally.
   **This is extremely rare with legal owners, and eliminated by training.

**3. Have your gun stolen by criminals.
**Yes, a valid risk but I’d rather be armed to confront the criminal.
**
4. Get angry and shoot someone in a rage.
A rare occurrence by legal gun owners, mostly a problem with gangs and illegal ownership.

Statistically, all these things do happen.
Statistically, 1, 2, & 4 are rare with legal gun owners.
Your best argument is for mandatory training

Widespread gun availability - for the benefit of the well/intentioned gun owner - assists the badly intentioned to access guns.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yes. Gun control laws. Laws which you oppose.

Wrong, child abuse and negligent homicide laws cover the relevant situations.

It doesn’t take any magic. Guns are quantitatively more dangerous than many of the objects that might also be used in a harmful manner. Regulations take into account probabilities. The probability of a kid finding a gun in the house and killing his neighbor in play is much higher than the probability of that same kid finding a kitchen knife and killing his playmate. So we don’t regulate kitchen knives, but we do regulate guns.

Wrong, my gun is secured. My kitchen knives are not.

I was referring to this unsolicited comment that you made:

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.

So it seems you are the one making a statistical claim. I was just challenging you to back it up statistically and quantitatively. And don’t say the burden is on me to prove you wrong.

That comment was made in response to your unsolicited comment which definitely made some statistical claims. The burden of proof is still on you.

Actually, that one cuts both way. Your position is to rely on a belief that widespread gun ownership causes more good than harm. Because if that were not so, to promote widespread ownership would be immoral. So there is an onus on you too to demonstrate the the greater good.

No, my position is that I have an individual right to own weapons to defend my rights. There is an onus on you first to demonstrate the state has both the authority and the responsibility to regulate guns on behalf of the “common good”. Simply appealing to authority is not sufficient. Use logic. I do not make ethical or political decisions on faith and neither should you.

 

[Theo520]

Can I get you to go on record as endorsing such a measure?

Yes, I’m also for universally teaching gun safety in schools, the basic precautions like in the NRA Eddie Eagle training for kids. It would counterweight the fun gun use they see on TV and in games. Not shooting skills.

Any adult with a gun should have the basic gun safety rules hammered into their heads. An online course would be sufficient. Heck, I recently got my CPR certification for work online, a much more complicated topic.

Widespread gun availability - for the benefit of the well/intentioned gun owner - assists the badly intentioned to access guns.

Badly intentioned people have found a weapon as long as there have been rocks and sticks they can pick up off the ground. I prefer the option of defending myself.

 

[Rau]

Wrong, child abuse and negligent homicide laws cover the relevant situations.Wrong, my gun is secured. My kitchen knives are not.That comment was made in response to your unsolicited comment which definitely made some statistical claims. The burden of proof is still on you.No, my position is that I have an individual right to own weapons to defend my rights. There is an onus on you first to demonstrate the state has both the authority and the responsibility to regulate guns on behalf of the “common good”. Simply appealing to authority is not sufficient. Use logic. I do not make ethical or political decisions on faith and neither should you.

My issue is not about what right you believe you have personally, nor am I arguing the State has a particular right (though IMO, it clearly does). It is about what is the rught position to pursue - in particular, is it right to pursue widespread gun access in our society. It is only right if that is believed to have greater good than evil consequences. If you support widespread gun access, then you assert that it does. Or alternatively, you knowingly act immorally. You may pick one of these alternatives.

 

[Rau]

…Badly intentioned people have found a weapon as long as there have been rocks and sticks they can pick up off the ground. I prefer the option of defending myself.

Widespread gun availability greatly eases access to guns for the badly intentioned. That cannot be ignored. Your preferences in the matter - to have access to a gun - has no bearing on the right course.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Wrong, my gun is secured. My kitchen knives are not.

That does not refute my point, which was to show reasons for some objects being regulated and other objects not. The fact that your gun is secured is proof that you do recognize that guns are more dangerous than kitchen knives. So it should not be surprising to you that people want to regulate guns more than they want to regulate kitchen knives.

Simply appealing to authority is not sufficient.

It is sufficient according to the catechism.

I do not make ethical or political decisions on faith and neither should you.

That is your decision. I stand by my decision.

 

[Theo520]

Widespread gun availability greatly eases access to guns for the badly intentioned. That cannot be ignored. Your preferences in the matter - to have access to a gun - has no bearing on the right course.

Why did you ignore my point that bad people will always have access to weapons, and my rights have the utmost bearing on the discussion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why did you ignore my point that bad people will always have access to weapons, and my rights have the utmost bearing on the discussion.

I disagree with Rau’s assertion that your preference in the matter of access to a gun has no bearing. It does, and it should. However I agree with Rau’s point about widespread availability making it easier for bad people to get guns.
Bad people will always have some kind of access to weapons. But we can make it more difficult for them to get guns, even if we can’t make it truly impossible. Criminals have varying degrees of motivation. Some are highly motivated, and will do whatever it takes. Some are less motivated, and will get guns only if it is easy. There is some value is stopping them, even if we fail at stopping the first group.

 

[Rau]

Why did you ignore my point that bad people will always have access to weapons, and my rights have the utmost bearing on the discussion.

The first part seemed irrelevant ( why would we want to make their access dramatically easier?) and beliefs about personal “rights” don’t determine what constitutes a moral act.

 

[Theo520]

The first part seemed irrelevant ( why would we want to make their access dramatically easier?) and beliefs about personal “rights” don’t determine what constitutes a moral act.

I was referring to constitutional rights, which has bearing and I would think fits with a moral discussion.

Guns are really no easier to access now than any time in the history of our country. If you think there has been a shift, they are not the factor that requires attention.

 

[Rau]

I was referring to constitutional rights, which has bearing and I would think fits with a moral discussion.

Guns are really no easier to access now than any time in the history of our country. If you think there has been a shift, they are not the factor that requires attention.

It is a woman’s right in the USA to abort unborn children. This suggests that “rights” don’t ensure morality of actions. More likely, if an act is moral, then we exercise a right (or licence, as the case maybe) by so acting.

 

[David_Fortin]

I recommend the book “More Guns, Less Crime” by professor John Lott.

 

[David_Fortin]

Can I get you to go on record as endorsing such a measure?

If he won’t, I will.

 

[starshiptrooper]

My issue is not about what right you believe you have personally, nor am I arguing the State has a particular right (though IMO, it clearly does). It is about what is the rught position to pursue - in particular, is it right to pursue widespread gun access in our society. It is only right if that is believed to have greater good than evil consequences. If you support widespread gun access, then you assert that it does. Or alternatively, you knowingly act immorally. You may pick one of these alternatives.

False dichotomy. I will take a third option. My gun personally benefits me and that makes it a good thing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

False dichotomy. I will take a third option. My gun personally benefits me and that makes it a good thing.

If you take that third option without giving widespread access to everyone else, you are claiming a different, but still immoral, position. The position that breaks the golden rule.

 

[Rau]

False dichotomy. I will take a third option. My gun personally benefits me and that makes it a good thing.

The assessment of morality requires consideration to be given to ALL the good and bad consequences. If the balance of consequences for all of widespread gun availability is bad, then it is immoral to act in favour of widespread gun availability. A “me, me, me” focus is not sufficient to evaluate the morality. There is no false dichotomy.