Gun Control in the USA

[Drew]

The 'militia' is the people.

I doubt things are this obvious. As I understand the history of supreme court rulings, different courts have reached different conclusions about what a "militia" is.

But either way, we need to realize that the constitution was written some hundreds of years ago in an entirely different setting. It is highly irrational to believe that the writers of the Constitution could have foreseen the 21st century American context.

 

[Drew]

Making criminals of law-abiding citizens will not prevent crime.

1. We need to ask this question: "How many law-abiding citizens, over time, become mentally ill, and are therefore apt to use their guns for ill?"

2. We need to remember that the fact one has no criminal record is not a reliable "view into the heart". I will bet that many people out there who use guns for ill have no prior criminal record when they decided to act.

3. We need to remember that these law-abiding citizens, like all people, are subject to acts of rage;

4. We need to remember that these law-abiding citizens can also make mistakes - shooting an "intruder" that turns out to be a teenager sneaking back into the house at 3 PM.

If you must have your guns - and I see no reason why you must - then by all means do the background checks. But please: this idea that the world is divided into the "law-abiding good guys" and the "law-breaking bad guys" is clearly an over-simplification.

 

[Drew]

Drew, that is exactly what I am asking you. How does one go about creating this? You continue to assure me that it can be done and that "it's" the right thing to do, but I'd like to bring you back to reality by asking exactly how? How would you disarm America? Violent felons and those dangerously mentally ill first, I hope.

I am not saying that I know the "how". But I suggest one thing is clear: other nations have no guns and people are safer in those countries than in the USA. Is it theoretically possible that the USA has gotten itself into a situation where there is way to disarm the populace safely? Possibly, but I suggest this is highly unlikely.

 

[Drew]

Come up with some tangible solutions and we'll explore them. This means you, Drew!

This is not really a good argument. The fact that I do not happen to have enough knowledge to articulate a solution is hardly an argument that it cannot be done.

I am not knowledgeable enough about how to do this. But that does not change the fact that many other nations have achieved a gun-free state and the people there are safer than in the USA. This is powerful empirical evidence that it can indeed be done.

 

[Obadiah]

I am not saying that I know the "how". But I suggest one thing is clear: other nations have no guns and people are safer in those countries than in the USA. Is it theoretically possible that the USA has gotten itself into a situation where there is way to disarm the populace safely? Possibly, but I suggest this is highly unlikely.

Actually, Drew, I was hearing on a Canadian radio station just the other day about the success in your country of the ban on guns and lower crime rates than the US. But the study showed that the success was due to an overall different attitude of the Canadian people in general toward each other than we have here in the US, not because the guns themselves are banned. As far as other countries who have banned guns being safer as a result, that's not really the case. Australia has done what you suggest the US do, and crime (including violent gun related crime) has increased dramatically as a direct result. Go figure. And look at Mexico. Guns have been illegal in Mexico for many years now and they have pretty much turned into the Columbia of the 21st century because of the heavily armed drug cartels and the governments inability to protect the law abiding citizens. Countries that are showing lower crime are consistently countries where the attitudes of the people toward each other or more respectful and courteous than here in the US.

As one who lives in the US and has worked in law enforcement in some of the most violent areas, I can attest firsthand that it is not true that most gun related crimes are committed by those who have no past criminal record. By far the majority, in fact almost all cases I was involved with showed the shooter DID have a past criminal record, almost always a felony record, and was actually already banned from possessing a gun. (Yet they still had a gun, despite a law saying they couldn't. Go figure!)

I don't believe the answer is in removing guns, I believe it is in changing the general attitude of how we treat and respect each other, including how we care for (or fail to care for) the mentally ill. Unfortunately that is something that will be extremely difficult to change on a nationwide basis and if it could be done will have little to do with whether or not guns are legal. But if it we are ever to change, we as Christians hold the tools to cause it to happen. We can show the people what it means to love instead of hate and to respect instead of kill. If there is any hope of solving the problem, it lies in the word of God, not in trying to legislate away one item that some people misuse.

 

[Drew]

Actually, Drew, I was hearing on a Canadian radio station just the other day about the success in your country of the ban on guns and lower crime rates than the US. But the study showed that the success was due to an overall different attitude of the Canadian people in general toward each other than we have here in the US, not because the guns themselves are banned.

There is probably some truth in this, but there are important exceptions. Assault weapons are entirely banned in Canada.

In any event, the fact that a particular culture - such as the Canadian one or the Swiss one - may "work" with gun ownership is (obviously) not necessarily generalizable to the USA. I suggest that a combination of other factors make the USA a "dangerous" place for people to have guns.

I must insist that we expose plain bad logic: The fact that it may indeed be possible to have an armed society that does not have problems with violence does not, of course, mean that the best solution in the case of the USA is to "keep the guns and change the culture". And the reason is this: it may be much easier / cheaper to get rid of the guns as the way to deal with the American problem of violence than to change other variables.

In short, it remains entirely plausible that the "best" way to deal with violence in the USA is to add more gun control even if an armed population does not necessarily lead to violence.

 

[Drew]

What civilian needs an anti-tank rocket launcher?

Good point. And I would also add this: What civilian needs an automatic or semi-automatic weapon?

 

[Sparkey]

This is not really a good argument. The fact that I do not happen to have enough knowledge to articulate a solution is hardly an argument that it cannot be done.

I am not knowledgeable enough about how to do this. But that does not change the fact that many other nations have achieved a gun-free state and the people there are safer than in the USA. This is powerful empirical evidence that it can indeed be done.

Awwww... Drew, don't sell yourself short. I would suggest that you're not able to articulate a solution simply because there is no reasonable solution.

Interesting to me how you insist that an undefined "it" can be done though.

There is another aspect to this, that I've not mentioned before. Although I don't own any firearms, it would be fair enough to say that I am part of the gun culture in the US. Just the other day my son and I were talking about a new bullet design while sharing a hamburger. If you were to say this was "part of the problem" I might admit that I am not knowledgeable or articulate enough to debate the issue, but the point that I'm trying to make is that there are many people in the US who are more radical than I am. I've described myself as law-abiding and this is the case (as you should expect of a Christian). Given a choice of turning in my firearms or being labeled a felon, there is no choice (for me). I am commanded by God to obey worldly authority.

That's not the case for many currently law-abiding citizens though. They really love their guns. I've read in forums where ex-military and even policemen themselves have said that if a law were passed that made it a felony to own certain weapons, they'd be felons. I've heard others say, "If they want to take my guns, let 'em try."

Drew, your dream of a Utopian Society for America would be nice, I'm sure (if there was a way to accomplish it). Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the potentially deranged mass-murderer sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? Still, and back to my case. What if I hadn't given my pistol (remember the picture I posted) to my son, but instead kept it in my possession? You are suggesting that because I did something that was constitutionally protected more than 30 years ago and refused to turn it in for destruction tomorrow I am now guilty of breaking the law and should not be allowed to vote and lose all the rights that being a citizen of the United States entails.

Would you be willing to give me something that you value, that you've had for more than 30 years, that you've legally owned and cared for just because I say that someday you could suffer from mental illness and hurt somebody with it? Okay! Send me your fishing pole or your cherished object of your favorite hobby. Or just destroy it yourself. Don't ask me to make sense of my argument, that you could become mentally ill someday and harm could come from your failure to comply with my wishes, you know it's the right thing to do.

Either that, or start trying to devise a better argument than what you've presented here. I look forward to it.

 

[reba]

The second amendment was not written so the citizens could go hunting.

 

[Drew]

Awwww... Drew, don't sell yourself short. I would suggest that you're not able to articulate a solution simply because there is no reasonable solution.

This is not correct logic. It really is quite clear: the fact that I do not have a solution does not mean that there is not one. Unless we are going to use proper reasoning, how can we have a proper discussion?

Do I really need to explain why your reasoning here is incorrect?

 

[Sparkey]

Actually, Drew, I was hearing on a Canadian radio station just the other day about the success in your country of the ban on guns and lower crime rates than the US. But the study showed that the success was due to an overall different attitude of the Canadian people in general toward each other than we have here in the US, not because the guns themselves are banned. As far as other countries who have banned guns being safer as a result, that's not really the case. Australia has done what you suggest the US do, and crime (including violent gun related crime) has increased dramatically as a direct result. Go figure. And look at Mexico. Guns have been illegal in Mexico for many years now and they have pretty much turned into the Columbia of the 21st century because of the heavily armed drug cartels and the governments inability to protect the law abiding citizens. Countries that are showing lower crime are consistently countries where the attitudes of the people toward each other or more respectful and courteous than here in the US.

I tend to dismiss such comparisons because of the apples vs. oranges problem. There are more people living in the state of California than there are in all of Canada, of every Province put together.

As one who lives in the US and has worked in law enforcement in some of the most violent areas, I can attest firsthand that it is not true that most gun related crimes are committed by those who have no past criminal record. By far the majority, in fact almost all cases I was involved with showed the shooter DID have a past criminal record, almost always a felony record, and was actually already banned from possessing a gun.

You're making a mistake here (trying to use facts to convince Drew). He didn't copy your quote here because he can't argue against it and because it exposes a MAJOR flaw in his argument.

I don't believe the answer is in removing guns, I believe it is in changing the general attitude of how we treat and respect each other, including how we care for (or fail to care for) the mentally ill. Unfortunately that is something that will be extremely difficult to change on a nationwide basis and if it could be done will have little to do with whether or not guns are legal. But if it we are ever to change, we as Christians hold the tools to cause it to happen. We can show the people what it means to love instead of hate and to respect instead of kill. If there is any hope of solving the problem, it lies in the word of God, not in trying to legislate away one item that some people misuse.

"Have you ever been declared incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution?" This question seems reasonable enough. Most people just answer "No" and move on to the next question.

Virtually everyone agrees that individuals suffering from serious mental illnesses should not be allowed to purchase firearms. For their part, most gun buyers assume that federal and state authorities verify the accuracy of the answers provided for the mental health question. That, unfortunately, is not the case.

 

[Sparkey]

This is not correct logic. It really is quite clear: the fact that I do not have a solution does not mean that there is not one. Unless we are going to use proper reasoning, how can we have a proper discussion?

Do I really need to explain why your reasoning here is incorrect?

The fact that you do not have a solution means that I can not agree with you (try as I might). We can not walk together if we can not choose a first right step.

 

[Sparkey]

What are your thoughts about mandatory outpatient treatment laws for the mentally ill who are a known danger to themselves and others when they stop taking their medication? Seems to me that this would be a first-step that we could agree on. It would provide care for the ill and help prevent senseless tragedy. Further, existing laws could be strengthened so that records of individuals who have had a history of mental illness could be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm—by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands.

 

[phantom309]

Good point. And I would also add this: What civilian needs an automatic or semi-automatic weapon?

The kind of civilian who wants every fighting chance of keeping a/multiple armed criminal(s) from harming their family.No insult intended,but you clearly have no idea how hard it would be to defend the homestead against this type of threat with a firearm that is limited to 1 round only before reloading.Youve also clearly glossed over much of this conversation and continue to argue the same old points,in the process intentionally ignoring common sense points made.

Again,Ill use the example of the common 2am home invasion.1 guy kicks the door down,after which him and his crew rush in different directions through the house.The goal is simple.Use the element of surprise and superior numbers to quickly subdue any potential threat.In such a scenario,you have seconds to react after the glass breaks or the door gives way.Many times there isnt even time to complete a proper 911 call.Now picture someone attempting to subdue the aggressors with a firearm that only has a 1 round capability or slightly better,maybe even a bolt action rifle.Jolted awake,in the dark,scared and having to make your 1 shot count.Chances are you you wont hit on the first shot,especially if youre being shot at first.

The only thing youre going to accomplish with semi-auto bans are increased crime rates and the further inability of the populace to defend itself against criminals.And no,this is not over-simplifying things.We also dont have to assume that this would take place.We dont even have to look outside our country for examples of this.Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country,and the crime rate there is less than exemplary.Argue what you will,you seem to enjoy ignoring fact.In doing so,it becomes obvious to the rest of us that many are willing to use isolated events to achieve a personal goal.Some among us simply dont like firearms,and despite the facts and statistics that support the benefit of having them around those few are eager to have them banned just to soothe their own fears.

You throw around alot of what-ifs and hypothetical scenarios,while simultaneously accusing the other side of over-simplifying and assumption.Own up to the facts.The criminal usage of firearms and the criminals wielding them are far,far fewer than the number of incidences in which these tools are beneficial and pale in comparison to the sheer number of legal gun owners who never commit a crime with the multiple guns they own.Say what you will now,but when we do finally see large-scale gun control on the level you clamor for there will be a day in which you are forced to see the error of such an argument.Most wont admit it,and some still wont be completely satisfied until the common man is legislated to the point of being confined in a govt provided home on the assumption that one day he might just hurt a neighbor.You have no idea exactly what it is you ask.

 

[Sparkey]

Studies by Dr. Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist and the US Department of Justice conclude that guns are frequently used to protect crime victims. The rate of burglaries at occupied homes (“hot†burglaries) in Great Britain and the Netherlands is 45%, compared to a rate of 13% in the U.S. Comparing those rates to the percentage of hot burglaries in which the homeowner is threatened or attacked (30%), Kleck concluded that there would be an additional 450,000 burglaries in the U.S. in which homeowners are threatened or attacked if the rate of hot burglaries in the U.S. was similar to the rate in Great Britain. The lower rate in the U.S. is attributed to widespread gun ownership.

A study by professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed nearly 2,000 incarcerated felons and concluded that criminals are more worried about running into armed victims than law enforcement.

According to the Wright-Rossi survey, 34% of the felons responding from state prisons said that they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured†by a victim armed with a firearm. The same percentage said they worried about being fired upon by armed victims, while 57% said they were more concerned with encountering an armed victim than encountering law enforcement officers.
Source: About.com: Civil Liberties

 

[Sparkey]

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

DEFENSIVE GUN USE STATISTICS, PEER REVIEW:​

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology]

The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator....

I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies.

... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.

... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

 

[Sparkey]

Published 12/20/2012
[video=youtube;XMg0FQS6Fqo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XMg0FQS6Fqo[/video]

 

[Sparkey]

The December 16 Movie Theater Shooting You Didn’t Hear About
On Sunday night, December 16, 2012 (the day after the Sandyhook massacre in Connecticut), a man went to the China Garden restaurant in San Antonio and opened fire. The gunman intended to kill his ex-girlfriend but she wasn’t there, so he continued on to the movie theater next door where he fired on panicked moviegoers, sending them to the exits, and ducking for cover.

After the suspect reached the theater, an off duty Sheriff who was working at the theater shot at him and possibly struck him.

Nobody died. The armed officer’s quick response saved lives.

[video=youtube;8fI1oP1h8VA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8fI1oP1h8VA[/video]

 

[phantom309]

Good posts Sparrow.

These are the stories that happen every day that the media gives little to no coverage,particularly at the national level where it is always universally condemned and the gun owner always demonized.This is the kind of defense that is only possible through the use of firearms,particularly the semi-auto variety.That young boy and his sister mentioned in the earlier video never would have been able to repel 2 home invaders without a gun,and had he had to reload after every shot he very well could have been killed by the robbers while trying to do so.Both sides have to be considered,but at the end of the day the facts dont lie.Guns save lives,and there are way more legal owners/carriers than criminals by far.

It would be nice to see this kind of rally against something that honestly deserves it.Alcohol contributes to a ridiculous amount of deaths,but I dont see a cry for a renewed prohibition.Many people lose their lives to illegal drugs,yet I dont see this knee-jerk reaction and a demand to round up all the drugs.What I do see is that history has proven legislation to be ineffective at deterring determined criminals.What we need is harsher penalties for the criminal.

The bad guys are no longer afraid of prison.They get 3 hots and a cot while hangin with the same/similar crew they rolled with prior to getting caught.They watch cable TV,have weight benches and other warm,fuzzy activities.Many intentionally return to prison after release because they admit that they dont like having the to struggle to pay bills and hold a job.

These are the people were dealing with,many of whom cannot be reasoned with as a victim.Most gangs consider violent action,even when unnecessary to be a respectable trait and often reward their members for carrying out such action.These are the people we struggle to arm ourselves against,because in the moment every advantage is needed.30 rounds in a magazine allows for aim correction and equalizes the factors involved..fear,low-light conditions,adrenaline,moving assailant,multiple assailants,multiple armed assailants,etc.

 

[reba]

About 30 years ago some bad guys kicked down our door and came into the house. The only gun we saw was their shotgun... I was very thankful John did not have to kill anyone... John shoved his own gun under the bad guys chin, with such force, he flipped backwards over a small swivel chair....the sound of that shotgun is one I will never forget.
To be unarmed is just plain dumb.

God's mighty hand was over us that evening in many ways..