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

[David_Fortin]

I have no issue with background checks at the initial point of sale, or resale through a licensed dealer. I do take issue with any law that would require a background check for private transfers, or on ammunition.

It’s already a felony to knowingly provide firearms, or ammunition, to someone who is a convicted felon, or has been adjudicated as mentally defective. It’s also a felony to provide a firearm to any person who you know, or should know intends to use it in an unlawful manner.

So, enforce existing law, not create more law to penalize otherwise lawful citizens.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I have no issue with background checks at the initial point of sale, or resale through a licensed dealer. I do take issue with any law that would require a background check for private transfers.

In lieu of background checks for private sales, would you support making the seller personally responsible for any harm done by someone who buys a gun from that seller? Or would you allow the seller to claim that he didn’t know the guy was going to shoot up a college campus and avoid legal responsibility? You see, with a background check, the seller can rightfully claim “I did my due diligence”. But without it, the seller is open to being responsible for those actions.

 

[Theo520]

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.

No, you are wrong. The US Courts effectively determined that women did have the moral right to kill their unborn babies.

 

[Rau]

No, you are wrong. The US Courts effectively determined that women did have the moral right to kill their unborn babies.

The court has no credentials to define morality. As Christians, we know objectively that murder of the innocent is not moral.

 

[Theo520]

The court has no credentials to define morality. As Christians, we know objectively that murder of the innocent is not moral.

You have an unusual interpretation of the US Criminal code. You can disagree with it, but it does provide effective boundaries on what the Govt considers moral behavior.

Moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior

 

[Rau]

You have an unusual interpretation of the US Criminal code. You can disagree with it, but it does provide effective boundaries on what the Govt considers moral behavior.

Moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior

I express no interpretation of the US criminal code at all, other than the following:

Morality is not defined by the US criminal code nor is it established by the Government.

 

[Theo520]

I express no interpretation of the US criminal code at all, other than the following:

Morality is not defined by the US criminal code nor is it established by the Government.

Maybe not for you personally. I’d say the criminal code defines moral behavior/boundaries for the vast majority of atheists in this country.

 

[Rau]

Maybe not for you personally. I’d say the criminal code defines moral behavior/boundaries for the vast majority of atheists in this country.

Not even for them. Adultery is not a crime.

In any event, you are a Christian - how do u come to hold the views about the source of morality, and the morality of abortion, which you have expressed here?

 

[David_Fortin]

In lieu of background checks for private sales, would you support making the seller personally responsible for any harm done by someone who buys a gun from that seller? Or would you allow the seller to claim that he didn’t know the guy was going to shoot up a college campus and avoid legal responsibility? You see, with a background check, the seller can rightfully claim “I did my due diligence”. But without it, the seller is open to being responsible for those actions./QUOT

I understand your point, however it misses the point “pun intended”. All criminal law focuses on the intent of the actors. Without “malice of forethought” there cannot be “1st degree murder”. Any murder requires criminal intent, Manslaughter doesn’t. So, if I don’t have prior knowledge of the purchasers intent, how can I be held responsible for his unlawful actions? If it can be “proven” that a seller has prior knowledge, they can be prosecuted under current law.

I would however, support a “voluntary background check system”. A background check in my state is a simple, call to the state, law enforcement division, They just check subject’s Name,DOB,or DL number against the N.C.I.S. database. If there’s a a reason to deny the sale, they just say yes,or no. It typically takes less than 5 minutes, and isn’t recorded. I would support a “citizen line” to SLED for this purpose,but it would overload the agency if not properly planned and equipped. I wouldn’t support any mandatory requirement.

 

[Rau]

if I don’t have prior knowledge of the purchasers intent, how can I be held responsible for his unlawful actions? If it can be “proven” that a seller has prior knowledge, they can be prosecuted under current law.

Lack of knowledge does not place one beyond prosecution for “any” charge, but rather may cause the charges to be adjusted. For example, to “reckless endangerment occasioning death”. The law would need to provide for such a charge, but such a provision has ample precedent. If you break a law (the hypothetical obligation to “do” a background check) and such conduct contributes to the death of another, charges may result.

 

[Theo520]

Not even for them. Adultery is not a crime.

In any event, you are a Christian - how do u come to hold the views about the source of morality, and the morality of abortion, which you have expressed here?

I never said the criminal code defines every moral behavior for Atheists, but it is the general framework.

And many Atheists don’t see anything immoral with sex outside of your marriage.

 

[Rau]

I never said the criminal code defines every moral behavior for Atheists, but it is the general framework.

I suspect you’re not being serious here. Which came first - the morality, or the criminal code? Does morality change according to a change in the law?

And many Atheists don’t see anything immoral with sex outside of your marriage.

Perhaps you can find some holding that position if the other marriage partner is agreeable. But adultery is typically committed together with a deception of the spouse; You still think that could reasonably be held to be moral?

Bottom line: morality is not established by legislature. It may align with specific moral principles, but if does not establish them.

 

[Theo520]

For everyone living, the common law legal code came first. It existed before any of us learned what we believe is moral behavior.

Perhaps you should just come out with your point, instead of trying to lead me to some conclusion you have.

I suspect you’re not being serious here. Which came first - the morality, or the criminal code? Does morality change according to a change in the law?

Perhaps you can find some holding that position if the other marriage partner is agreeable. But adultery is typically committed together with a deception of the spouse; You still think that could reasonably be held to be moral?

Bottom line: morality is not established by legislature. It may align with specific moral principles, but if does not establish them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For everyone living, the common law legal code came first. It existed before any of us learned what we believe is moral behavior…

it will be impossible to determine whether a sense of morality or common law legal code came first, using direct historical evidence, because the origin of both things lies in prehistory. But if we look closely at what we mean by these two things, it becomes apparent that they are two ways of describing the same phenomenon. Common law, as distinguished from formal legal code, is that collection of moral truths that anyone could derive for themselves. It does not need to be written down. But isn’t that just what a sense of morality is? So asking which came first is looking for a distinction without a difference.

However, as soon as we move from common law to written law, or even law passed on through an oral tradition, we now have something different. Even though the origin of formally acknowledged law is also somewhere within prehistory, it seems reasonable that the first act of codifying such a law would not have taken place unless someone first realized the moral truth and decided it would be a good idea to make that a societal law. Indeed it is hard to imagine the opposite - that someone decided to write down a law and suddenly everyone adopted it as a moral truth.

 

[Theo520]

it will be impossible to determine whether a sense of morality or common law legal code came first, using direct historical evidence, because the origin of both things lies in prehistory. But if we look closely at what we mean by these two things, it becomes apparent that they are two ways of describing the same phenomenon. Common law, as distinguished from formal legal code, is that collection of moral truths that anyone could derive for themselves. It does not need to be written down. But isn’t that just what a sense of morality is? So asking which came first is looking for a distinction without a difference.

However, as soon as we move from common law to written law, or even law passed on through an oral tradition, we now have something different. Even though the origin of formally acknowledged law is also somewhere within prehistory, it seems reasonable that the first act of codifying such a law would not have taken place unless someone first realized the moral truth and decided it would be a good idea to make that a societal law. Indeed it is hard to imagine the opposite - that someone decided to write down a law and suddenly everyone adopted it as a moral truth.

You are getting into a chicken or egg discussion. For atheists** currently living,** they adopted the laws/legal code in place as their primary arbiter of what is deemed moral.

 

[Rau]

…For atheists** currently living,** they adopted the laws/legal code in place as their primary arbiter of what is deemed moral.

Says who? And what does “primary arbiter” mean - that’s delightfully flexible.

Do you really believe that today’s atheists deem that which is allowed by law (that is, not outlawed) to be moral? Haven’t we already noted that adultery (at least without consent of the dishonoured spouse) is widely regarded as immoral, and yet nearly nowhere is such conduct contrary to law.

Do you really believe that atheists necessarily consider killing unborn children moral? Turns out many don’t - google “pro-life atheists” or similar.

Atheists spending time in different countries with different laws must become quite confused. And if you think not - then you’d be arguing that there is no such thing as morality - there is only the law of the land (that one is in, at the time…).

I dispute your claim that atheists look to the law for moral guidance. I have personally debated here on CAF with a number of atheists who outlined the system of morality to which they subscribe. They did not take their ethical system from the law, but rather from a set of specific ethical principles such as the golden rule, and others. They noted (unsurprisingly) the extent to which the local law tended to follow moral (or ethical) principles, but clearly acknowledged that the law is considerably more narrow in scope than such principles, as the adultery example demonstrates.

I would suggest your remarks do atheists a disservice. To be atheist does no imply that one rejects ethical principles and is merely guided by the law of the land.

 

[Rau]

Perhaps you should just come out with your point, instead of trying to lead me to some conclusion you have.

My “point” is that you have made a sequence of erroneous statements which I have sought to point out.

You rejected the view that “rights don’t ensure morality of actions”, and asserted that the US courts "determined that women have the moral right to kill their unborn babies. Clearly a court has no authority over **morality **- they can only determine what is lawful.

Subsequently, confining your point to atheists, you claimed the “criminal code defines moral behavior/boundaries for the vast majority of atheists in this country.” That is false, noting:

• adultery is widely legal and very widely regarded as immoral (by atheists too);
• the scope of moral principles is vastly wider than the criminal code

And my broader point on this thread is that the “right” to bear arms does NOT ensure that acts *in support of the widespread availability of guns in society *are moral. The one may stand in conflict with the other.

 

[Theo520]

My “point” is that you have made a sequence of erroneous statements which I have sought to point out.

You rejected the view that “rights don’t ensure morality of actions”, and asserted that the US courts "determined that women have the moral right to kill their unborn babies. Clearly a court has no authority over **morality **- they can only determine what is lawful.

Subsequently, confining your point to atheists, you claimed the “criminal code defines moral behavior/boundaries for the vast majority of atheists in this country.” That is false, noting:

• adultery is widely legal and very widely regarded as immoral (by atheists too);
• the scope of moral principles is vastly wider than the criminal code

And my broader point on this thread is that the “right” to bear arms does NOT ensure that acts *in support of the widespread availability of guns in society *are moral. The one may stand in conflict with the other.

I think you must work on your reading comprehension, I always qualified what I said in terms of how Athiests come to many of their moral beliefs. I never suggest this trumped the moral guidance given to Christians, or adherents to any other faith.

 

[Rau]

…I always qualified what I said in terms of how Athiests come to many of their moral beliefs. I never suggest this trumped the moral guidance given to Christians, or adherents to any other faith.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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.

In the confines of my apartment, a gun or a knife are equally dangerous in the hands of an adversary. If other people want to regulate guns on their private property, that is fine by me.

It is sufficient according to the catechism.

Justifying your appeal to authority with another appeal to authority. Seems legit.

That is your decision. I stand by my decision.

Despite having nothing to back it up.