Reply #36: confusing "infer" and "imply" are we?

[iverglas]

It's usually done in the other direction, but you seem to be substituting your inference (not that it qualifies as an inference) with the implication you wish the poster had made.

What the poster said:

A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
<A ∩ B> = all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Now compare and contrast -- what you say:

Mike implies that any HAM radio operator that let the transmitter go off frequency can't have a gun.
Mike implies that any automobile driver who exceeded the speed limit can't have a gun.
Mike implies that a person who drove a car while their drivers' license stayed at home can't have a gun.
Mike implies that an over drawn checking account precludes having a gun.

Which number in his list do you see those things in / infer them from?

Not 1 -- those aren't gun laws
Not 2 -- those aren't family violence
Not 3 -- those aren't addictions
Not 4 -- those aren't related to firearms handling
Not 5 -- those aren't related to competence

So which one? Where are the IMPLICATIONS you allege?

He did say his list was not exhaustive, but on what basis would you infer such unrelated additional items?


Myself, I was going to say that there actually are two big glaring omissions in that list

- people who have committed serious crimes but have never been convicted -- crimes like drug trafficking, robbery, burglary, sexual assault ... not people who exceeded speed limits; and if you want to pretend there are not gazillions of people like that, feel free

- people whose mental status is a clear contraindication to firearms possession (severely depressed, delusional) and who may well even be under medical care, but have never been committed for care ... and people who are incompetent as a result of deteriorated faculties or severe developmental delay, but have never been judged incompetent; and again, feel free to pretend there are no such people


A secondary advantage of a licensing system is the indirect deterrent it operates: people who are involved in things like drug trafficking aren't actually likely to apply for a licence, and thus will be unable to acquire a firearm legally. Other deterrent provisions are possible: in Canada, a spouse/partner must sign off on the permit application (and even if they do, out of intimidation, they have a hotline they can call), giving women who are victims of spousal abuse an opportunity to block the permit.

With the simple background check system, anyone who knows they have no actual conviction can purchase a firearm legally from a dealer ... if they don't just avoid the hassle and go to a gun show or a parking lot somewhere ...