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

[GeauxLSU]

Well, I am not.

Fair enough. Catholicism, this country and of course the internet, is filled with all sorts of folks. Freedom loving (as I know Christ to be) to Statists.
Make an informed decision is all anyone can ask.

 

[GeauxLSU]

In every case? How could you know that?

No, the individual without a gun is less of a risk than that same individual with a gun.

There is no end to your ‘logic’ if that’s how you view the world. We should ban alcohol, cars, hammers, cut off people’s hands so they can’t make fists, etc … where does it end? You either believe people are responsible for their actions and should be treated accordingly or you live in fear of inanimate objects and try and enact the proven false utopian myth of government enforced ‘security’.
Has Godwin’s Law been invoked yet?

To answer your first question, I’m very confident that anyone who wants a gun and has the cash, has a gun. That includes every felon with ill intent. Just like the current gun laws don’t effect him one iota, neither will any other gun laws. They are criminals by definition. They break the law. It is already illegal to sell a gun to a felon, yet they buy them. How, again, is having you are I subject to a background check going to change that? Total confiscation would make his life easier as many law abiding gun owners would comply but I realize it’s not (yet) acceptable to admit that is a desire.

 

[exnihilo]

You must be counting killings in war. Those are killings of foreign enemies. When it comes to the government killing its own people, that is a drop in the bucket compared to non-government killings - at least in any reasonable government. You have to go to governments like Saddam Husain’s to find a counterexample.

Of course I include war. Why wouldn’t I? That is one of the biggest products of government. The distinction of being labeled a ‘foreign enemy’ hardly matters to the dead. When the US nuked two cities or firebombed Germany the dead weren’t any less dead. Most killed were civilians who used to be considered innocent, until the US adopted total war. I’m sure you don’t exclude street gang killings from homicide by gun statistics. Government is just a higher level street gang.

The communist however were very good at killing their own citizens. As for ‘reasonable’ government I’ll quote Washington: ‘government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force’. If we have a government that is able to control people by taking away pleasure rather then inflicting punishment we may live in fortunate times, but there is no guarantee it will stay this way.

 

[exnihilo]

---

Every other right has limitations.

Freedom of speech doesn’t imply that you can incite to riot or revolt without consequence.

Freedom of the press does not mean you can print malicious lies about somebody and not get sued.

Freedom of religion does not entitle you to become a Quetzalcoatl adherent and sacrifice your neighbor; nor, if you become a Norse-gods worshipper, can you claim the right to a Viking funeral.

Freedom of assembly? Try gathering in front of the USSC with ninety others to pray about abortion and see how long before you are chased off. I’ve done it. Less than ten minutes.

But gun proponents say that any limitations on weapons are unacceptable.

ICXC NIKA

There already exists a limit regarding guns and that is you can’t use them to murder or threaten people. The limit is on how you use the right. The limit some seek is to prevent mere ownership of an object. It would be like limiting the first amendment by licensing pens and papers, charging an exorbitant special tax on those items or by doing background checks in order to purchase them.

 

[philipl]

attn.com/stories/8813/president-obama-addresses-gun-control?utm_source=beingliberal&utm_medium=fbpost&utm_campaign=influencer
Obama said that the U.S. needs “common sense” gun laws that allow citizens to own guns but also prevent the wrong people from getting access to them. He said that the only way to reach that balance is to have better conversations about gun laws that don’t result in arguments about the “destruction of the Second Amendment.”

But all those “common sense” gun laws are already in place. So why doesnt he explain what new “common sense” laws that need to be created that will make the already"common sense" law better?

 

[GeauxLSU]

There already exists a limit regarding guns and that is you can’t use them to murder or threaten people. The limit is on how you use the right. The limit some seek is to prevent mere ownership of an object. It would be like limiting the first amendment by licensing pens and papers, charging an exorbitant special tax on those items or by doing background checks in order to purchase them.

:yup:
Only one says “shall not be infringed”. To some, I quote the famous philosopher Inigo Montoya - “I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;13950301]You have your cause-and-effect backwards in the Chicago and DC examples.

Not at all. To keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. These two cities tried to take that right away (except from criminals, of course), and murder and gun crimes are higher there than where the right to carry is defended.

That was a one-time event, and a revolution against a foreign power. We are no longer ruled by a foreign power, so the likelihood of having to fight the British again is quite remote. And by the way, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought by a nascent government - not by a bunch of individuals who just happened so show up to a flash mob organized through Twitter.

It wasn’t a foreign power. It was the domestic power. And it was citizens with firearms organized (militia) outside government permission. There is no reason to believe it could not happen again.
Please, Leaf, no one is talking about a flash mob, except maybe Hillary Clinton regarding a youtube video.

Can it go far enough? Statistics, please.

It doesn’t have to go anywhere. Look, I am not the one advocating the elimination or virtual elimination of a basic human, civil, constitutionally protected right. I think it is up to those to show, however impossible, why this right practiced safely by tens of millions of Americans should be stripped from them.

In interviews with people who have tried and failed to commit suicide, those individuals report that the compulsion to kill themselves ebbs and flows, and sometimes the unavailability of a ready means of doing it is enough to get them past a critical window of vulnerability, where better reasoning finally takes over. These people report that ready availability of guns makes it possible to act on impulse without thinking. Yes, it is a mental heath issue, but we can give mental heath treatment a chance to work if these impulsive opportunities are reduced.

And how is that a reason to deny tens of millions of Americans a basic human, civil, and constitutionally protected right. We don’t deny people the opportunity to drive, or to drink alcohol, neither of which are constitutionally enumerated, just because others do them together, endangering the lives of others.

Exponentially more people than what? Non-governmental murders? Certainly not in the US. In 2013 there were 14,196 non-governmental murders. Do you think the government killed that many of our own people in 2013?

Why are you under the impression that this country is immune from the same kind of socialist dictatorships that ravaged Europe and Asia in the last century?

You have not made the case that murder by government is a bigger risk than non-governmental death from firearms (I am counting suicides and accidents too. You say they can be minimized, but offer no proof of that either.)

Leaf, I don’t have to make a case. You are the one who has to make a case that tens of millions of Americans should be denied by force a constitutionally protected right. But just look around the world. Human beings make the case for me.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is no end to your ‘logic’ if that’s how you view the world. We should ban alcohol, cars, hammers, cut off people’s hands so they can’t make fists, etc … where does it end?

It ends in the normal reasonable way. The risks are weighed against the benefits. When the benefits outweigh the risks, you go ahead an accept the risk.

Has Godwin’s Law been invoked yet?

No, but it makes you feel better I will: “What about Hitler, eh?”

To answer your first question, I’m very confident that anyone who wants a gun and has the cash, has a gun.

That depends on how badly they want a gun. Not all those who would get a gun illegally are equally motivated.

 

[JonNC]

You must be counting killings in war. Those are killings of foreign enemies. When it comes to the government killing its own people, that is a drop in the bucket compared to non-government killings - at least in any reasonable government. You have to go to governments like Saddam Husain’s to find a counterexample.

One doesn’t have to count war. Hitler’s Germany, The USSR, Communist China, the Pol Pot regime, ISIS, Mussolini’s Italy, Sudan, Syria, the list goes on and on. Governments killing their own people.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course I include war. Why wouldn’t I? That is one of the biggest products of government…

The reason it matters is how the statistic was used in the argument. You will recall that that you wrote:
I really don’t understand the drive to disarm citizens and keep states fully armed. Non government gun killings are a drop in the ocean compared to government killings.
If the second sentence is used to support the first sentence, you would be claiming that keeping the citizens armed discourages government killings. But the only government killings that would be discouraged by this would be when the government kills its own citizens. So military action against of foreign enemy should not be counted. How does an armed US populace prevent the US military killing enemies in Iraq?

The communist however were very good at killing their own citizens.

As good as they were at killing their own citizens, the citizenry was (and is) even better at killing each other. (9.5 per 100,000 in Russia, vs. 3.8 in the US.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not at all. To keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. These two cities tried to take that right away (except from criminals, of course), and murder and gun crimes are higher there than where the right to carry is defended.

Nope. Still backwards. First came the high murder rate. Then came gun restrictions as a response to the high murder rate. i.e. the gun restrictions did not cause the high murder rate. They were caused by the high murder rate.

Please, Leaf, no one is talking about a flash mob…

If you want to organize a grass-roots revolution, Twitter is your best tool for doing that (or other social media). How else do you expect to coordinate all these armed citizens so they know when to attack the government?

And how is that a reason to deny tens of millions of Americans a basic human, civil, and constitutionally protected right. We don’t deny people the opportunity to drive, or to drink alcohol, neither of which are constitutionally enumerated, just because others do them together, endangering the lives of others.

Again, it is just a cost / benefit balance.

Why are you under the impression that this country is immune from the same kind of socialist dictatorships that ravaged Europe and Asia in the last century?

It is not a question of being immune. It is a question of what is likely.

Leaf, I don’t have to make a case.
Jon

Well, you were the one who said governmental killings were a bigger risk than non-governmental harms with firearms. If you are not prepared to make the case for your claims, I guess we will have to treat them as just your opinion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One doesn’t have to count war. Hitler’s Germany, The USSR, Communist China, the Pol Pot regime, ISIS, Mussolini’s Italy, Sudan, Syria, the list goes on and on. Governments killing their own people.

Jon

Many more governments do not kill their own people. Certainly not the US government to any great degree. Again, it is not a question of what **could **happen. It is a question of what is likely to happen.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;13950921]The reason it matters is how the statistic was used in the argument. You will recall that that you wrote:
I really don’t understand the drive to disarm citizens and keep states fully armed. Non government gun killings are a drop in the ocean compared to government killings.
If the second sentence is used to support the first sentence, you would be claiming that keeping the citizens armed discourages government killings. But the only government killings that would be discouraged by this would be when the government kills its own citizens. So military action against of foreign enemy should not be counted. How does an armed US populace prevent the US military killing enemies in Iraq?

You’re twisting the argument. the fact is that civilian gun violence is minute compared to government killing of its own citizens.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’re twisting the argument. the fact is that civilian gun violence is minute compared to government killing of its own citizens.

Jon

Not the US government. And especially if you includes suicides and accidents.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;13950953]Nope. Still backwards. First came the high murder rate. Then came gun restrictions as a response to the high murder rate. i.e. the gun restrictions did not cause the high murder rate. They were caused by the high murder rate.

Causing the murder rates to go higher, and leaving private citizens, like Otis McDonald to fend for themselves against the un-disarmed street criminals. Disarm them first, and leave the law-abiding citizens alone!

If you want to organize a grass-roots revolution, Twitter is your best tool for doing that (or other social media). How else do you expect to coordinate all these armed citizens so they know when to attack the government?

Why would I want to organize a grass-roots revolution. I won’t need to organize much if the government tries to confiscate hundreds of millions of guns from tens of millions of Americans.

The whole point is, as the founders understood, is a check on the government in the protection of liberty. Now, I know there are many in the progressive movement that are opposed to gun rights because they oppose the constitution. I’m on the other side of that fence. I support gun rights because I support a constitutionally limited government.

Again, it is just a cost / benefit balance.

Actually, it isn’t. It is basic individual human and civil rights.

It is not a question of being immune. It is a question of what is likely.

It isn’t likely. that’s the point of the second amendment.

Well, you were the one who said governmental killings were a bigger risk than non-governmental harms with firearms. If you are not prepared to make the case for your claims, I guess we will have to treat them as just your opinion.

Again, I’m not the one trying to eliminate a human and civil right, but if you google the number of Germans Hitler killed, the number of citizens killed by Stalin and Lenin up through Gorbachev, the number killed by Mao and his successors, the central and eastern European Soviet slave states, and many more, it is pretty obvious that governments kill more of their own people than citizens do each other.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Not the US government. And especially if you includes suicides and accidents.

Not yet, at least. But go ahead and eliminate gun ownership, elect a socialist, and viola!

My own view is to keep our weapons, and keep our rights, thank you very much.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Causing the murder rates to go higher…

There is no proof that gun regulations caused the murder rate to go higher. The murder rate is affected by many things besides gun regulations, e.g. economic conditions, street lighting, etc.

Why would I want to organize a grass-roots revolution. I won’t need to organize much if the government tries to confiscate hundreds of millions of guns from tens of millions of Americans.

But the whole point of keeping the weapons was supposed to be in case the government became tyrannical. Then the armed populace would rise up - right? If the government let everybody keep their guns, but still became tyrannical some other way, how would all those gun owners coordinate their response? I see lots of difficulties in effectively using those weapons to combat any modern government.

Actually, it isn’t. It is basic individual human and civil rights.

I was answering your question of “We don’t deny people the opportunity to drive, or to drink alcohol, neither of which are constitutionally enumerated, just because others do them together, endangering the lives of others.” I was explaining that the reason we don’t deny people these things is because of the cost / benefit analysis. The benefit of driving a car, for example, is huge. And so we accept the risk of car accidents, even though they kill quite a few people each year. On the other hand, the benefit to the common good of owning an Abrams tank is somewhat smaller. So we choose not to accept the risk of allowing everyone to have a fully armed tank. It is not a civil rights issue because there is no inherent civil right to own a gun. There is just the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of one country. A civil right is something that transcends national boundaries. The 2nd amendment does not apply anywhere outside of the US.

It isn’t likely. that’s the point of the second amendment.

That doesn’t make sense. You are telling me the point of the 2nd amendment is that it is not likely that our government will turn tyrannical? Why would we take special precautions for something that is not likely?

… but if you google the number of Germans Hitler killed, the number of citizens killed by Stalin and Lenin up through Gorbachev, the number killed by Mao and his successors, the central and eastern European Soviet slave states, and many more, it is pretty obvious that governments kill more of their own people than citizens do each other.

Jon

Show me the numbers that support that. I still think citizens kill each other more in all those nations put together than their governments did.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not yet, at least. But go ahead and eliminate gun ownership, elect a socialist, and viola!

My own view is to keep our weapons, and keep our rights, thank you very much.

Jon

OK.

 

[Brendan]

There is no proof that gun regulations caused the murder rate to go higher. The murder rate is affected by many things besides gun regulations, e.g. economic conditions, street lighting, etc.

And there is no proof stronger gun laws results in a reduction of violent crime either.

But the whole point of keeping the weapons was supposed to be in case the government became tyrannical. .

Nope, it is for defense. Most of the time, that is a defense against violent attackers.

It is quite true that the possibility exists that the violent attackers might be one’s own government, that is not the ‘whole point’

The point is being able to offer a legitimate defense against those who might do harm or violate one’s God given rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And there is no proof stronger gun laws results in a reduction of violent crime either.

So let’s try it and then we will know for sure.

Nope, it is for defense. Most of the time, that is a defense against violent attackers.

That’s what I thought, but the others I have been arguing with here have said the 2nd amendment was all about discouraging government tyranny.