What are the Arguments Against Universal Background Checks

I like the statement above.

35,000 people, including kids, are killed each year in traffic accidents. How does one rationalize to go ape-(*)(*)(*)(*) over 25 people killed at a school while ignoring 35,000 being killed in traffic accidents? How does government rationalize killing 5000 Americans in the Iraq conflict when all 5000 of them are 100% innocent human beings...this seems okay but someone shooting 20 people is horrific?

Can anyone point to a time in the last 10,000 years when people were not killing other people? As long as we have people, and exactly as it is in the animal kingdom, there will be killings.

I'd say Obama and others in Congress are so insecure, so frightened, so desperate, and are political whores, that they politicize these types of events, pound their chests, demand solutions, yet if people pay attention...absolutely nothing ever changes!

This entire discussion is misguided; the problem is not guns...the problem is and always will be PEOPLE...

 

We can drug test Welfare applicants, but not give background checks because it would cost too much?

 

Right-On Bowerbird. I agree with your chart.
I also find it interesting,that some cry about our Government interfering with our rights,yet use a "Government Document" to argue their point of view.
I don't know what the answer is to this huge problem,but to do nothing is unacceptible. It actually surprizes me that there is so much un-regulation on guns,being they are potentially so dangerous.

 

The biggest and most logical reason why sensible people are against background checks is because predators won't get background checks -- only predators will have guns.

And assault rifles should not be banned either. Of course no one will really need an assault rifle until the predator uprising begins.

 

Most of the arguments against background checks are based on a conspiracy theory involving gun registries. of course, anybody making that argument against the bill currently being proposed hasn't done their research because it's actually part of the bill that creating a gun registry would be a felony for anyone including law enforcement/government.

 

Again, this is a failing of the criminal justice system, not me. If anyone should have to adjust to compensate for this failing, it is the criminal justice system, not me.
Also, we are not allowing the opportunity to live in society as a free citizen if we have perpetually suspended their rights. They exist in a limbo between prisoner and freeman.

Are you disputing that freedom and safety are often at odds? Freedom is inherently dangerous by its nature. The more freedom you have, the less safe you are in some sense. It is a continuum, but I feel like we are on opposite ends of it, which is why it seems like a dichotomy. For me to voluntarily give up even the slightest amount of freedom, it has to be a pretty severe and imminent danger.

Again I ask, to what extent? I feel like there is an unreasonable or undesirable expectation of safety. The reason we have a republic and not a democracy is to protect us from the sheepish whims of the mob.

I don't think unfounded insecurity is a good enough excuse to chip away at my freedom. What people feel is not based on rationality or logic, it is based on whatever feeling happens to come to them, and feelings can be manipulated much easier than rationality.

Can you explain what you are referring to? Also, the constitution does not grant any rights. It specifies which preexisting rights can not be infringed by laws. Maybe this explains why we are coming to different conclusions on this issue?

Owning private property does not violate the rights of others.
If you will notice, you do not have a constitutionally protected right to "feel safe". That is not a right and is based on arbitrary factors and definitions.

As I stated above. You do not have a right to feel safe. This nation was founded on principles of individual liberty and breaking away from over controlling government. There are plenty of other nations that were not founded on these principles that might be more to someone's liking if what little freedom we have left is scary.

 

That is not debatable; the answer is no. If I want help, I'll ask for it.

Protection is illusory in most instances. Law is more about retribution for crimes actually committed. The protection you are talking about is arresting or penalizing someone for legally damaging you in some way.
The only way you are going to preventatively protect me from all citizens and myself is to lock me in a nerf prison cell in a straightjacket.

That's fine. On a philosophical level, I'm done with token gestures to appease an irrational mob though. If the law changes that's fine, but don't expect me to support it or willingly play along with the calls for change every time something bad happens.

 

Not really. It is easy to determine who is crazy AFTER a shooting spree. Psychiatry, as a soft science, can not really make accurate predictions.

"Certified professional" has widely varying implications. A certified mechanic or a certified surgeon practice a craft based on an empirical body of knowledge, while a certified mental health professional could be closer to a certified astrologer (depending on specialty) because it is a very subjective discipline. There are no blood tests for things like depression or ADHD, they are just syndromes that may or may not even qualify as an illness or disorder. This means a person's mental health is largely subjective and is susceptible to the biases of the observer.
The DSM which is the bible of modern mental health professionals is a book of syndromes and some real illnesses that were decided with a committee vote. Think about the implications of this standard of healthcare. All it would take is a vote to make opposition to the government or opposition to popular ideas a mental illness. That is too much arbitrary discretion.

For it to be a fallacy, I would have to have an argument correct? I did not draw any conclusions from the questions I asked, nor did I posit them as a premise. I was simply curious why this issue seems to be so important to people suddenly, when it is a statistically insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things.

I believe more deaths are caused by prescribed drugs than illegally obtained drugs. Anyway, if the issue were really as simple as "every life lost deserves immediate change to policy" then we would probably have outlawed medicine a long time ago. You make a distinction between risk to one's self and risk one poses to others, which is a fair distinction, but practicing medicine is potentially posing a risk to others right?

So you do not believe someone can pay their debt to society by going to jail alone?

 

We are all being watched. It is no secret that all internet and phone communication is monitored (for your safety of course). And asking me to take a background check before I exercise my constitutionally protected right is asking me to prove my innocence, which is to put needless stipulations on my rights. I don't need permission to exercise a right, because a right is not contingent on permission, or else it is not a right. The things I listed are not all about this issue specifically, but the pervasive pattern of encroaching regulation of every aspect of life and subversion of protected rights.

What I was comparing to a police state was the tired line of reasoning that states "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have no reason to worry about having your privacy invaded". If you value privacy for its own sake, then you do have something to worry about.

What do you suppose that whole process is? Is it not a proof of innocence check at its root?

I did read it, but I must have missed that part. It was just an example anyway, plug in any relationship you like. Grandfather to grandson, neighbors whatever. My point stands. My transfer of private property is no concern of the state unless it poses a threat to national security which, in this case, it does not.

You wanted a number so I gave you one. Let's say 5% of deaths not from natural causes.

Fair enough. I feel like our efforts would be better spent trying to address the causes of violence rather than addressing an incidental factor.

 

The most cogent arguments against background checks are:

The DoJ cannot be trusted to do such checks in a timely manner. They'll deliberately slow down the process and tell us some whopper like "the computer is down"

The DoJ cannot be trusted to NOT use background check information to build a registry database which is a necessary precursor to 3:00 A.M. SWAT raid to confiscate guns.

After 51 months of Eric Holder, you have to be some sort of Big Government freak to trust the Federal government on guns.

 

That is best assessed by the experts in

 

You wrote: "You can not, under any circumstances, justify subjugating law abiding and mentally fit citizens"

Is there a psychological assessment which people have to undergo before being allowed to buy a gun? If not then one has to rely on self assessment.

 

No I didn't. I said:

That is quite a different meaning that the partial quote you made.

 

I quoted what you wrote and stopped at "mentally fit" because I want to know who deems a person mentally fit.

 

Who do you think would normally make such an assessment?

 

Arguments against background checks are none! GOP new strategy oppose everything and do nothing. Background checks are already in place expanding this is a no brainer if the GOP are against background checks they should introduce a law to repeal any background checks in its entirety.

 

Before being allowed to buy a gun?

The buyer.

 

Well lets see when i own a gun, or a tv, or even a couch, i am not using a public space with it that by the very use of said space requires constant upkeep, repair, and some places snow removal, which all cost money. Your registrations for cars go to pave and maintain roads that you in turn use with your vehicle. My gun is not utilizing anything for public use and therefore does not need to paid for annually to the state for its use. If you park your car in your drive way and plan to have it sit there rest of its or your life, you do not have to reregister it. You just cannot use the public roads you would travel on until it is up to date.

As for insurance, i am not paying for what may happen with my gun. My air conditioner may fall out of a window and kill someone but im not going to get air conditioner insurance.

Guns are a tool, an "equalizer" to make any fight fair.i can put my ak47 on my table and talk bad to it, cuss at it, tell it its a great disappointment to me, but it will never turn itself and shoot me.

 

I'm surprised at the trust of government so many here display.

 

Cars kill way more people than firearms. All you've done is prove how feckless all those requirements are. It's basically a state-sanctioned slaughter of lazy people who don't want to walk or ride a bike/horse.

 

Yes, so a new law making today's law abiding citizen a criminal for doing what they are doing legally today is stupid and a waste of time.

 

If Adam Lanza went to purchase a gun, you think that he diagnosed himself with SID and and Aspergers?