Fooloso4 wrote: ↑
March 19th, 2018, 10:50 am
Here we see the danger of reducing human life to a number. If 250 lives don’t matter then 2 times 250 lives does not matter. When does it matter? How many lives would be lost if such a requirement was imposed?
I ask again: Would you also require training for everyone buying anything with a potential to cause accidental death?
You dismiss the fact that guns are different because they are designed and intended to be used to injure or kill. Other consumer items, thanks to “Nanny-statism”, have become increasingly safer to use.
Yes, of course I dismiss that fact, for the reasons given. For preventing accidental deaths the purpose of the item is irrelevant, because, by definition, accidents are not purposive. What matters is the item's potential for accidents. And many things have more potential for accidents than firearms.
And of course 250 lives lost "matters." All lives matter. But that "mattering" does not not justify banning everything with a potential to cause an accidental death.
An accidental gun death means the person who died was not a target. Otherwise, there is no difference between an accidental and intentional gun death. With any other consumer product safety features reduce death for all involved. A gun that was designed to reduce death or injury would, in your words, be reducing its utility.
That is a non sequitur
. Safety features for other items are intended to reduce accidental injuries. Since inflicting injuries upon anyone is not part of their intended purpose, then the features reduce injuries for all involved. The scope of the protections derives from their purposes. It does not follow that a safety feature intended to reduce accidental injuries from firearms must also reduce them for all involved, since inflicting injuries, which is sometimes justifiable, is the purpose of that item.
So why do you advocate a background check system?
Because a denial will cause a delay while the disqualified person seeks a different source, which might prevent a few crimes. And because, if used effectively, it would alert authorities to attempts by disqualified persons to acquire a firearm --- which should be made a felony.
So, you do consider anti-American extremist groups with stockpiles of weapons to be a danger after all.
Yes, since "anti-American extremist group" implies hostile intentions. "Anti-government group" does not.
If the people have a right to arms in order to resist despotism then they have a right to arms that would be effective.
The logic of such an argument leads inevitably to an escalating arms race. Fortunately, at least for now, even the Scalia court recognized the wisdom of limiting the arms that would be legally available to individuals.
Whether those limits are wise or not depends upon the degree and probability of despotism.