Gun Control in the USA

[Drew]

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.

Its diffficult for me to believe that you do not understand that the fact that a specific person (me) does not have a solution to a particular problem does not mean there is no solution.

How is this not obvious?

You talk about "walking together" - how can we walk together when you deny an obvious truth?

To elaborate: Getting rid of guns is not like putting on a pair of pants. Getting rid of guns is more complex, and I am not particularly knowledgeable about the options available to do this. So it would not be surprising at all that I, as an individual, cannot offer a solution. But to suggest that my inability to do so means there is no solution is like saying that because I cannot develop a vaccine for measles means that such a vaccine cannot be developed.

I really must insist on the clear logic of what I am saying: the fact that a specific person (me), lacking detailed knowledge about how to disarm the American population, cannot offer a way to do this is not evdence that it cannot be done. Especially in light of the fact that many other nations have achieved a state of "public disaramament" and are doing very well with that.

If you will accept this, there is no point in any further discussion between you and me.

That's the problem with this issue: the pro-gun forces make their living off demonstrably bad reasoning and a public untrained in proper ways to argue an issue.

 

[Drew]

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..

More evidence of the problem: you have not (apparently) been educated about the problem of the anecdotal argument. This is probably no fault of yours, it is a fault of your education system.

Using this kind of reasoning - giving us one example of where a gun was "helpful" - is like me saying its OK to smoke because my grandfather - who smoked like a chimney for 60 years - lived to the ripe old age of 90.

Its simply not correct reasoning. If you don't believe me, I am sure you can find stuff on the internet about the error of arguing from anecdotes.

 

[reba]

Drew I guess there are differences between arguments and real life. Good ol public education here. On that part I do agree.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

on the lighter side an email I just received...

Ruger is coming out with a new pistol to honor members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. It will be called "The Congressman". It doesn't work and you can't fire it.

 

[Sparkey]

More evidence of the problem: you have not (apparently) been educated about the problem of the anecdotal argument. This is probably no fault of yours, it is a fault of your education system.

Using this kind of reasoning - giving us one example of where a gun was "helpful" - is like me saying its OK to smoke because my grandfather - who smoked like a chimney for 60 years - lived to the ripe old age of 90.

Its simply not correct reasoning. If you don't believe me, I am sure you can find stuff on the internet about the error of arguing from anecdotes.

Good job, Drew. I post a reference to a peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), Guns and Violence Symposium, (here's the post again: "ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN" by Gary Kleck, Marc Gertz) ---> and even go so far as post one of the peer reviews by an ANTI-GUN fanatic like yourself and you pass right over it.

But let Reba tell the story about how having a firearm may have saved her life and you choose that (over my peer reviewed article) to become critical of. Dispute my Post #200, not Reba. It isn't one defensive gun use we're talking about here. There are approximately two million (plus Reba's 1) defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens.

 

[phantom309]

You talk about "walking together" - how can we walk together when you deny an obvious truth?

If you truly wish to focus on truth,stop ignoring the facts.Legal gun onwers/carriers far outnumber the criminals and legal usages again out pace this number by a long shot.Again you level accusations at the other side while ignoring an obvious truth yourself.You and others continually ignore these facts to pursue an agenda of your own while using recent events as leverage for that.

To elaborate: Getting rid of guns is not like putting on a pair of pants. Getting rid of guns is more complex, and I am not particularly knowledgeable about the options available to do this. So it would not be surprising at all that I, as an individual, cannot offer a solution. But to suggest that my inability to do so means there is no solution is like saying that because I cannot develop a vaccine for measles means that such a vaccine cannot be developed.

Ill agree here,solutions can be reached.However,you seem to be largely ignoring many of the statements offered by the progunners here.Most of us would concede to further background checks and/or more aggressive licensing/certification.No problem.Many of the "solutions" that come from the antigun side usually amount to more legislation,which makes it harder for the people already behaving,which the criminal already ignores.This is the primary point that we have trouble getting you guys to accept.

I really must insist on the clear logic of what I am saying: the fact that a specific person (me), lacking detailed knowledge about how to disarm the American population, cannot offer a way to do this is not evdence that it cannot be done. Especially in light of the fact that many other nations have achieved a state of "public disaramament" and are doing very well with that.

This is perhaps the greatest flaw in your arguments and others similar.You lack detailed knowledge on a subject and are still willing to clamor on the ban of an object of which you lack detailed knowledge of its functions and uses.In other words you truly have no idea how guns operate,how they save lives,what other legal/harmless uses there are,or how much more effective certain kinds are in self defense situations,and no clue what it takes to survive such a scenario and protect your family.The majority of the population adheres to existing laws and do not need further legislation to comply.The minority of the population doesnt comply,and as long as punishments are lax and families unable to defend themselves will exploit this situation as they see fit.You are targeting the wrong people,and further subjecting them to suffering at the hands of the very criminals we both hate to deal with by removing the ability to adequately defend.

Further,it amuses me to hear of these many countries whom have outlawed guns and have a utopian society in which the people are glad to be relieved of them..particularly when I know it isnt the truth.Most of the countries who have totally outlawed guns have seen crime rates soar and a casual conversation with any average joe will reveal that they are unhappy with this and would love to have the liberties afforded us by the constitution.

If you will accept this, there is no point in any further discussion between you and me.

Ditto.

That's the problem with this issue: the pro-gun forces make their living off demonstrably bad reasoning and a public untrained in proper ways to argue an issue.

This brand of commentary leads to a reasonable conclusion which I firmly believe rings true of the ones stating such.

First,you speak again of bad reasoning when you have clearly continued to ignore facts in your statements.Bad reasoning to me is rallying for something which you willfully admit you have no detailed knowledge on.

I have not seen much at all from the antigun side here that is based on rational,practical thinking.Most have even admitted to knowing little to nothing about the objects they wish to ban.That alone is pretty ridiculous..at the very least educate yourself on what you proclaim to side against.Factual statistic clearly favors legal gun owners and we all agree that penalties need to be ratcheted up for the criminals.Whats left then is that this entire issue is for the most part is not a practical one, but an emotional one..something born of personal fear,distrust and dislike.Noone here has proven that outlawing guns will work and clearly history has proven the opposite.The result is the fact that many of you simply dont like guns and are willing to utilize these current events and knee-jerk reactions to ban something based on personal conjecture.This is further highlighted by the fact that the majority of the time there appears to be a better-than-you attitude when addressing gun owners,and the undertones suggesting we are potential mental cases,paranoid preppers and the like.There have been alot of personal cuts and barbs thrown our way,and weve done our best to keep it light and state the facts along with our personal reasoning.

To be short,its clear to me that many here are opposing something that they simply dont like and are attempting to rationalize that opposition with recent events and glossing over the facts.Its a sad state of affairs when the men and women who are willing to defend their families are demonized by the people who are too afraid to.

 

[Sparkey]

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.



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.

It's a sad state of affairs, but you're right about that. Many will brag, "I can do 15 years standing on my head," as a routine way of intimidating other criminals. Jail-time is a deterrent, but it isn't as effective as one would hope. I still think that the only right course of action is to strengthen existing laws designed to keep guns and explosives out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. Drew's proposed "solution" that revokes the 2nd Amendment, would have made Reba's husband John a felon and put him in jail for protecting his family is worse than being unarmed.

I'm unarmed. But that's my personal choice. I'm not gonna tell other people (who know their neighborhoods better than I do) that they must have a gun, neither will I make it illegal for them to protect themselves.

 

[reba]

I'm unarmed. But that's my personal choice. I'm not gonna tell other people
(who know their neighborhoods better than I do) that they must have a gun,
neither will I make it illegal for them to protect themselves.

Thoughtful and very well said...

 

[Sparkey]

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
Source: Reason.com, "Gun Control's Twisted Outcome"

Go figure. The rise in gun crime coincides with increased lawlessness. THAT is what Christians need to focus their opposition on: lawlessness. Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

 

[King James]

Gun Facts

1. Criminals that shoot and murder people every day are not using legally obtained guns.
2. This talk of violent culture breeding for example the video games and movies, what do you expect? The military arm of the one world government needs to be violent.
3. Less violent crimes in areas with less restrictive gun laws is a fact. That means its a fact. A fact means that it has been proven to be true.
4. With the NDAA law passed last year coupled with the 1,000 FEMA camps built over the last 29 years never used for natural disaster relief, that actually look like another kind of camp, the second ammendment stands as guns being needed to defend youself from a corrupt government which we have.
5. Once guns are taken away, for better or worse, you will never get them back. Look an any other country that has done this.
6. With this being said, I don't own any, yet I do feel that people should have the right to own them. I think the process should be harder, like a mental health screening, and a test involving passing a written exam of safety procedures and laws regarding them as well as a practical test of loading, firing, a minimum of target accuracy, and cleaning/maintenance of the gun.
7. Most of the mass murder shootings are products of CIA brainwashing tactics with their agenda being indeed to take the guns away to easier control us.

 

[Sparkey]

You know, Drew, I would like to see God's will be accomplished on earth also. I don't think there will be any need for weapons there and then. I do believe that mankind will beat swords into plowshares.

Still the fact remains that now is not then. We will not accomplish Godliness by passing more laws. You've done well to admit that you can't even conceive of a viable or reasonable solution for the problems we face. Prayer comes to mind.

 

[Sparkey]

There is an understandable attempt to define the problems that come from lawlessness in tangible terms. If the problem is "guns" then the solution is relatively simple ---> eliminate guns and the problem goes away. If, on the other hand, the underlying problem of lawlessness is looked at, the solution may seem unreachable for those who mistake the goodness and power of God.

When we do narrow our focus to gun control (and ignore the greater problem of lawlessness) the reasonable admit that they can not offer a solution, "It really is quite clear: the fact that I do not have a solution does not mean that there is not one." There is a solution, but it does not come from man's law.

 

[WIP]

Using this kind of reasoning - giving us one example of where a gun was "helpful" - is like me saying its OK to smoke because my grandfather - who smoked like a chimney for 60 years - lived to the ripe old age of 90.

I’m sure we can acknowledge that the opposite is also true that saying we should eliminate guns because of a few criminal acts is like saying we should ban automobiles because someone gets killed in a car accident even though he routinely logs over 100K miles a year.

Did you know….

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun. That’s 1 in 57 US citizens victimized each year. It seems like a pretty good reason to be prepared.

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. That’s one person in 310 US citizens.

* A 1993 nationwide survey found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. I wonder how many of these would have turned out badly if the homeowners were not armed?

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

* Currently, for every 12 aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders committed in the United States, approximately one person is sentenced to prison for committing such a crime. That’s only about .8%. This suggests that somewhere in the ballpark of 92% of these criminals remain at large and a threat to society. Obviously, the 92% figure is subjective because it goes without saying that some of these criminals are responsible for multiple incidents. It is still a significant number nonetheless.

I realize that some of this data is old but I also believe it is reasonable to suggest that the numbers have not improved much if they’ve improved at all, which I personally doubt. The potential for people to encounter serious situations is certainly one to reckon with especially in some of the hotter areas of our cities.

At the same time, I must admit that I do not keep my firearms for personal protection. I do not nor have I ever felt the need to keep a loaded weapon in my home. I actually think it is a foolish thing to do especially if there is a possibility of children getting access to them. But that’s just me. I’ve never lived in a part of our country where I felt in danger and maybe I would feel differently if I had. All my firearms are for hunting or recreational use such as target shooting and I cherish my constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Does that make me a bad person? I hope not.

Let’s compare our beloved guns to our beloved automobiles.

*There are approximately 254,000,000 privately owned passenger automobiles in the United States.

*There are approximately 270,000,000 privately owned firearms in the United States.

*There are approximately 33,000 fatalities resulting from automobile crashes per year.

*There are approximately 31,000 fatalities resulting from firearms per year.

*About 10,500 of those automobile fatalities involve alcohol use. How many of us drive after having a drink or two or three or….

*About 10,200 of those automobile fatalities involve speeding. How many of us do this…regularly? Don’t lie. I’m the guy people hate because I don’t speed and I know I rarely lead the way.

*About 5,000 of those automobile fatalities involved distractions such as eating, drinking, phone use, texting, conversation with passengers, etc. We are all guilty I suspect.

*About 16,883 of those firearms fatalities are suicide. Not too much we can do to prevent someone from taking their own life once they've made up their mind.

*About 12,800 of those firearms fatalities are homicide.

Looks to me like the numbers are eerily similar. Why don’t we hear a push to eliminate automobiles the way we do firearms?

 

[Knotical]

I’m sure we can acknowledge that the opposite is also true that saying we should eliminate guns because of a few criminal acts is like saying we should ban automobiles because someone gets killed in a car accident even though he routinely logs over 100K miles a year.

Did you know….

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun. That’s 1 in 57 US citizens victimized each year. It seems like a pretty good reason to be prepared.

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. That’s one person in 310 US citizens.

* A 1993 nationwide survey found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. I wonder how many of these would have turned out badly if the homeowners were not armed?

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

* Currently, for every 12 aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders committed in the United States, approximately one person is sentenced to prison for committing such a crime. That’s only about .8%. This suggests that somewhere in the ballpark of 92% of these criminals remain at large and a threat to society. Obviously, the 92% figure is subjective because it goes without saying that some of these criminals are responsible for multiple incidents. It is still a significant number nonetheless.

I realize that some of this data is old but I also believe it is reasonable to suggest that the numbers have not improved much if they’ve improved at all, which I personally doubt. The potential for people to encounter serious situations is certainly one to reckon with especially in some of the hotter areas of our cities.

At the same time, I must admit that I do not keep my firearms for personal protection. I do not nor have I ever felt the need to keep a loaded weapon in my home. I actually think it is a foolish thing to do especially if there is a possibility of children getting access to them. But that’s just me. I’ve never lived in a part of our country where I felt in danger and maybe I would feel differently if I had. All my firearms are for hunting or recreational use such as target shooting and I cherish my constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Does that make me a bad person? I hope not.

Let’s compare our beloved guns to our beloved automobiles.

*There are approximately 254,000,000 privately owned passenger automobiles in the United States.

*There are approximately 270,000,000 privately owned firearms in the United States.

*There are approximately 33,000 fatalities resulting from automobile crashes per year.

*There are approximately 31,000 fatalities resulting from firearms per year.

*About 10,500 of those automobile fatalities involve alcohol use. How many of us drive after having a drink or two or three or….

*About 10,200 of those automobile fatalities involve speeding. How many of us do this…regularly? Don’t lie. I’m the guy people hate because I don’t speed and I know I rarely lead the way.

*About 5,000 of those automobile fatalities involved distractions such as eating, drinking, phone use, texting, conversation with passengers, etc. We are all guilty I suspect.

*About 16,883 of those firearms fatalities are suicide. Not too much we can do to prevent someone from taking their own life once they've made up their mind.

*About 12,800 of those firearms fatalities are homicide.

Looks to me like the numbers are eerily similar. Why don’t we hear a push to eliminate automobiles the way we do firearms?

Just thought your post was missing something there, WIP.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Just a reminder, everyone:

Discussions of conspiracy theories often lead to slander and hostile debate. Therefore, discussion of conspiracy theories is prohibited.

 

[from dust to life]

1.13 ...1.13: The line of authority at ChristianForums.net is Global Moderators, Super Moderators, Administrators, and Site Owner. Moderators deal with the day-to-day running of the forums, and any concerns about moderation should be directed to the staff member in charge of that particular forum, or the staff member who has taken action that you wish to contest. Moderators are not obligated to argue in defense of actions they take. Members are at liberty to clarify an action taken with the Moderator, but they are not to persist when they are not satisfied with the response received. If a member disagrees with a Moderator's first response, they are not to persist or take their dispute public. At that point, the appropriate step is to PM an Administrator. Administrators deal with the overall running of the site both on a technical side and also as a Staff Leadership role (as well as performing some moderation duties). Concerns on the site as a whole, technical issues or issues unsatisfactorily dealt with by moderators should be brought to the attention of the Administrators. Please note that an Administrator's word is final. Questions about finances should be directed to the Site Owner, but please note any other issues should be directed to Administrators, as the Site Owner does not engage with the running of the forums themselves.

Forums staff

 

[Sparkey]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

This statement from Wayne Lapierre says it all - its an oversimplification, almost certainly deliberately crafted to avoid reality and appeal to a common myth.

John R. Lott published, "More Guns, Less Crime" in 1998. Therein he asked the question, “Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime, or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?”

The answer? Lott observed that “of all the methods studied so far by economists, the carrying of concealed handguns appears to be the most cost-effective method for reducing crime.” Twelve years of additional experience and mountains of data confirm the empirical truth – more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens mean less crime. When "More Guns, Less Crime" was initially published, only eighteen states possessed right-to-carry firearms laws.

Today, that number has more than doubled to forty-eight states. Obviously, that dramatic increase provides an even larger base of data to test Lott’s research. The 3rd edition of the book includes all the recent research and a challenge from Dr. Lott: “I would ask gun control advocates one question: name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.”

 

[Eugene]

John R. Lott published, "More Guns, Less Crime" in 1998. Therein he asked the question, “Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime, or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?”

The answer? Lott observed that “of all the methods studied so far by economists, the carrying of concealed handguns appears to be the most cost-effective method for reducing crime.” Twelve years of additional experience and mountains of data confirm the empirical truth – more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens mean less crime. When "More Guns, Less Crime" was initially published, only eighteen states possessed right-to-carry firearms laws.

Today, that number has more than doubled to forty-eight states. Obviously, that dramatic increase provides an even larger base of data to test Lott’s research. The 3rd edition of the book includes all the recent research and a challenge from Dr. Lott: “I would ask gun control advocates one question: name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.”

This is good if it worked. I live in a state with the right to Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) and it just experienced the shooting at the theater in Aurora, Co. I continue to hear of the safety factor in such a state, but even if only an eighth of those attending that night had concealed weapons and had guts enough to use them, do you think James Holmes would have succeeded in injuring 58 and killing 12 people. Well I would have to say yes; most people act to save them and their loved ones by fleeing the scene. Even the police approach such incidents with caution. They wear body armor, have superior weapons, and most wait for their comrades to show up prior to charging in.

I've heard repeatedly that guns are not the problem and I agree, and something akin to "If more people had guns there would be less crime." I said this in jest once, but if all children in schools were allowed to pack a weapon just think how many less killers would enter those places looking to harm them. Teachers would be more polite, bullies might think twice and become a thing of the past, and possibly prayer would be the weapon of choice once again. Can you imagine Sally saying to the big guy pestering her to bug off, and with confidence?

I received this following email from a dear friend today and wondered where I'd use it, but this is as good a place as any. I do not know if it's accurate but it does project truth.

Columbine victim's father- 13 years later !!

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm? On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee.
What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

" Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that continue to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
Darrell Scott

 

[AirDancer]

Sparrowhawke, you can now add Illinois to that list, as Illinois is now a Concealed Carry Weapon state. (The Mayor of Chicago is not a very happy camper about it... but at least the good citizens will be armed against the criminals with the illegal weapons!)

 

[AirDancer]

Eugene, thank you very much for providing us with Darrell Scott's insightful words, including the poem he wrote. His words hold such simple truths, that good and evil both exist in this world of ours, and has for thousands of years. We each of us contain both good and evil within us; we each individually decide which trait will be dominate, and thus bear the responsibility for our own actions.

 

[Sparkey]

Regarding the 1999 Columbine attack in Colorado, few appreciate that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Presumably, he feared being stopped during his attack by someone with a weapon. In fact, the Columbine attack occurred the very day that final passage was scheduled.
Source: foxnews online article

Of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of James Holmes' apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, the Cinemark theater was the only one where guns were banned.

_____________________
PS. I agree with AirDancer and would thank you as well for your post.