If the gun malfunctioned and went off all by itself, killing all these people, then the gun would definitely be at fault. If not, then it’s the shooter.
Some may throw their hands up and say "It is too hard to create universal gun regulation that will prevent every gun death" while pragmatists will say "if we can prevent a few child size coffins being filled, it is worthwhile".
It's the shooter who had unrestricted access to a tool of murder.
It isn't logically consistent to say background checks would not have prevented this outrage. because no-one knows whether a hypothetical is true.
Would a l;aw banning abortion stop all abortions? Of course it wouldn't, and, just as in this case, the presence or absence of a law has no moral bearing on any particular outcome. It is altogether possible that a background check would have prevented this. If you claim to "know" otherwise you're a fool of the first water.
The kid is underage. He was possessing the guns illegally under any circumstance.
Just an FYI so we know who the "fool" is here. They don't do background checks on 15 year old kids. So yes, I can say a background check would not have prevented this shooting.
If the gun(s) weren't there, no one would have died from a gun. They might have died from something else and they might be alive today. Take the gun out of the picture and you don't really know what might have happened.
If he was background checked, the killings still happened.
If he wasn't background checked, and/or purchased the gun illegally, the killings still happened.
Creating more hoops to jump through does not prevent people from owning firearms. Background check or not, the likelihood of a firearm being present in the home was still very high.
Go to anywhere and look at illegal gun ownership. Background checks do nothing to stop people from owning firearms.
To try and make a case that a background check in this instance would have stopped these killings is disingenuous at best.
Tom Paxton What If?
ReplyDelete(he couldn't lay hands on a gun)
http://www.tompaxton.com/video_what_if.html
it's the shooter
ReplyDeleteIf the gun malfunctioned and went off all by itself, killing all these people, then the gun would definitely be at fault. If not, then it’s the shooter.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, tell us again how universal background checks or a ban on assault weapons or hi-cap magazines would have prevented this.
ReplyDeleteMore guns = more gun deaths.
ReplyDeleteSome may throw their hands up and say "It is too hard to create universal gun regulation that will prevent every gun death" while pragmatists will say "if we can prevent a few child size coffins being filled, it is worthwhile".
It's the shooter who had unrestricted access to a tool of murder.
It isn't logically consistent to say background checks would not have prevented this outrage. because no-one knows whether a hypothetical is true.
ReplyDeleteWould a l;aw banning abortion stop all abortions? Of course it wouldn't, and, just as in this case, the presence or absence of a law has no moral bearing on any particular outcome. It is altogether possible that a background check would have prevented this. If you claim to "know" otherwise you're a fool of the first water.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteThe kid is underage. He was possessing the guns illegally under any circumstance.
Just an FYI so we know who the "fool" is here. They don't do background checks on 15 year old kids. So yes, I can say a background check would not have prevented this shooting.
If the gun(s) weren't there, no one would have died from a gun. They might have died from something else and they might be alive today. Take the gun out of the picture and you don't really know what might have happened.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to drunk driving is making it more difficult for sober people to buy cars.
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't whether the shooter was subject to a background check. Its whether the person who possessed of the weapon(s) was subjected.
ReplyDeleteSo this is yet another of the illusory certainties you entertain. You cannot ever make a positive assertion from a negative.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteIf he was background checked, the killings still happened.
If he wasn't background checked, and/or purchased the gun illegally, the killings still happened.
Creating more hoops to jump through does not prevent people from owning firearms. Background check or not, the likelihood of a firearm being present in the home was still very high.
Go to anywhere and look at illegal gun ownership. Background checks do nothing to stop people from owning firearms.
To try and make a case that a background check in this instance would have stopped these killings is disingenuous at best.
So, you're at once saying background checks are a problem and not a problem?
ReplyDeleteQED
No, I am saying background checks are not the issue and would not have made a difference.
ReplyDeleteNice try though.