Gun Control in the USA

[Dustoftheearth]

Drew, 12 pages ago, in Post #74, I replied to this. Would you not consider the US Supreme Court Chief Justice sufficient authority to rebut and prove Toobin wrong?


Do you have you nothing better to do than recycle your old arguments?

Does the fact that you have certain rights, mean that you ought to take up those rights?

You may all soon have the right to same sex marriage, does that mean you should take up that right?
You may all have the right to have an abortion, does that mean you should take up that right?

Are all rights right, just because some man (or group of men) say they are your rights?

2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
2Co 5:15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.
2Co 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.

 

[Sparkey]

Does the fact that you have certain rights, mean that you ought to take up those rights?

I don't own guns.

 

[Drew]

I think you make a fair point here.....

Thanks for your openness - it really does need to be acknowledged that it is not crystal clear exactly what the writers of the constitution intended to assert.

But, in any event, do we also agree that the US Constitution does not have have "gospel" status? That is, it is not necessarily inerrant, absolute truth. And more to the point, it would, I suggest, be naive to believe that the framers of the Constitution would have been able to look forward in time and envision the nature of 21st century life when they wrote the 2nd amendment. It may have been a sensible concept in that place and time; however that does not mean it is sensible today.

 

[Sparkey]

What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.

Gun laws may not reduce violent crime but criminal violence causes gun laws—at least, well-publicized crimes do. The only winner in this drama is bureaucracy. The rest of us lose liberty as well as safety. It is an illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public since no law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes.

 

[Sparkey]

Of course this thread is about Gun Control in the USA but to honor one of our chief contributors, a Canadian citizen, I thought it might be interesting to examine the costs associated with gun control in Canada as well.

[video=youtube;LM2jxqVPLGE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LM2jxqVPLGE#![/video]

The recent Canadian firearms regulations, the licensing and registration, has been estimated by our Auditor General (Shiela Frasier) to have cost at least a billion dollars. Fraisier said the estimate would have been more if the Canadian government had allowed her to see the books. The government refused the Auditor General complete access but at the point where they did stop, she got up to a $Billion dollars. It was originally estimated to cost the taxpayers two (2) $Million.

 

[Sparkey]

Britain's Regret: "The use of weapons in crime has increased dramatically."
Laws built on lies:

[video=youtube;qGVAQOUi6ec]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qGVAQOUi6ec#![/video]

Their message to gun owners in America is simple, "It will happen to you if you let it."

 

[Vanguard]

For whomever is coming into this late...read over the first 2-3 pages, then fast forward to the last page. All of the data will show what Sparrowhawke and I (and others) have been saying. Gun bans and/or stricter gun laws don't drop crime rates. The lack of guns actually increases crime rates. I've asked for some to cite their sources so that I can check them. I am a cop and can access the FBI's crime stats for any given year. Anti-gun advocates tend to be blinded by their vendettas.

 

[WIP]

Thanks for your openness - it really does need to be acknowledged that it is not crystal clear exactly what the writers of the constitution intended to assert.

But, in any event, do we also agree that the US Constitution does not have have "gospel" status? That is, it is not necessarily inerrant, absolute truth. And more to the point, it would, I suggest, be naive to believe that the framers of the Constitution would have been able to look forward in time and envision the nature of 21st century life when they wrote the 2nd amendment. It may have been a sensible concept in that place and time; however that does not mean it is sensible today.

You are correct and if I may point out to the contrary it does not mean it is necessary to abolish today either. The US constitution is a living document meaning that it is not written in stone and does provide for change. To prevent willy-nilly change there are specific instructions regarding the process of effecting said change.

 

[from dust to life]

You may well consider this to be hypocrital on my part - that in taking this position, I too, am ascribing motive without evidence. Well, the readers will come to their own conclusions about whether the evidence of this thread (and others) justifies my position.

Greetings Drew.

I believe most of the conflict arise because of the misconception that Jesus would want us to send our kids to bear-arms for our country (another words if your a Christian in Iran, you should serve Iran, if Afghanistan - serve Afghanistan, if in 1935 Germany, serve Hitler and so on.) without question. After all, is a soldier to question his orders from his President to go and kill? Of course not. So Christians on one hand bear arms for their country and kill without question, then when it comes to something like we have now, gun control issues, there is confusion.

Drew, may I ask if you believe in bearing arms, or sending your son or daughter to bear arms for your Country and defend it with your life against the 'enemy'? I don't mean just for the US, but ANY country you reside in as a Christian?

Thanks, and may the Lord bless you.

Odon

 

[Drew]

You are correct and if I may point out to the contrary it does not mean it is necessary to abolish today either.

Of course. Nevertheless, I believe your nation would be better off if guns were much more substantially controlled then they are now.

 

[Drew]

Drew, may I ask if you believe in bearing arms, or sending your son or daughter to bear arms for your Country and defend it with your life against the 'enemy'? I don't mean just for the US, but ANY country you reside in as a Christian?

Thanks for asking. I definitely belong somewhere at the pacifist end of the scale, believing that there are very few circumstances (perhaps none) in which the use of armed force by the Christian is justified. So while I am not entirely convinced of the illegitimacy of an entirely defensive military, I am most certainly opposed to the way the Iraq and Afghanistan situations have been handled (including the way my own country - Canada - has behaved).

A friend of mine went to Afghanistan and was involved in "kicking in doors". He sadly concluded: "When you kick in a door, and invade the privacy of a family by force of arms, you have lost legitimacy - you cannot tell such a person "We're here to bring you the wonders of western democracy".

In short, the Christian should have no part in the whole enterprise of achieving goals - even legitimate ones - at the point of gun or through military intimidation.

So while I would not rule out the legitimate use of 'force' in some very unusual circumstances, I think the majority in the 21st century wester church have strayed from the gospel path with their endorsement of, and participation in, the use of armed might.

Does that answer your question? I assume you would agree that I am generally being consistent here: I want to be part of the project of beating swords into plowshares, whether at the international level or at the domestic level.

 

[Mike]

Several posts were deleted from this thread where members were ranting about others and/or talking about ignoring them. It is against the ToS to make a public display about putting someone on the ignore list. Please stick to the issues and not make it about others. Thank you.

 

[from dust to life]

Thanks for asking. I definitely belong somewhere at the pacifist end of the scale, believing that there are very few circumstances (perhaps none) in which the use of armed force by the Christian is justified. So while I am not entirely convinced of the illegitimacy of an entirely defensive military, I am most certainly opposed to the way the Iraq and Afghanistan situations have been handled (including the way my own country - Canada - has behaved).

A friend of mine went to Afghanistan and was involved in "kicking in doors". He sadly concluded: "When you kick in a door, and invade the privacy of a family by force of arms, you have lost legitimacy - you cannot tell such a person "We're here to bring you the wonders of western democracy".

In short, the Christian should have no part in the whole enterprise of achieving goals - even legitimate ones - at the point of gun or through military intimidation.

So while I would not rule out the legitimate use of 'force' in some very unusual circumstances, I think the majority in the 21st century wester church have strayed from the gospel path with their endorsement of, and participation in, the use of armed might.

Does that answer your question? I assume you would agree that I am generally being consistent here: I want to be part of the project of beating swords into plowshares, whether at the international level or at the domestic level.

Thank you my friend, I understand. Only by the time we come to beating swords into plowshares, there won't be any private farms left to use the plowshares on, or people to do any private farming.

There are two sides of this saying; 'swords into plowshares', one uses it to disarm the citizens, and the other will happen when Christ returns to rule. Just as Satan uses "peace, peace" while murdering, killing full speed ahead.
It is easier to murder the citizens under the pretense of peace, just as taking their guns away in the pretense of 'beating them into plowshares' I'm sure you agree.

Thanks again.

Odon

 

[Sparkey]

Dr. John Dixon is a British Columbia philosopher who served as senior advisor to (then) Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. John Tait. His essay, "Off Target", was originally published in the Globe and Mail. The essay starts off with the powerful statement, "It is now widely understood that the government's gun control policy is a fiscal and administrative debacle. Its costs have reached levels that rival core services like national defence and health, and it doesn't work." He goes on to describe the political climate in Canada and then addresses the issue of a national gun registry.

We had two functioning systems of gun registration in 1992 -- the complete registry of all restricted firearms, such as handguns -- the ownership and use of which had been restricted since the 1930's, and a separate registry of ordinary firearms.

This latter registry, which started in the early 1970's, was a feature of the "firearms acquisition certificate" (or FAC) required by a person purchasing any firearm. Every firearm purchased from a dealer had to be registered to the FAC holder by the vendor, and the record of the purchase passed on to the R.C.M.P. in Ottawa. This meant that we were building up a cumulative registry of all of the guns in the country -- and their owners -- purchased since 1970.

The FAC system did not aspire to universality. It was a very Canadian -- i.e. sensible -- approach to the registration of ordinary hunting and target firearms. If you were a good 'ol boy from Camrose, Alberta, and didn't want to get involved, you didn't have to....as long as you didn't buy any more guns. Good old boys eventually die, of course, and younger people still active in the shooting sports would eventually all be enrolled in the system.​

We can see similarities between the US System and the Canadian FAC where both require background checks for gun purchases. The Canadian system attempted to acquire a central (national) database where records of the sale of all firearms were to be passed on to the R.C.M.P. in Ottawa. Congress has long resisted the empowerment of the A.T.F. for such a purpose. Is this an example of US folly?

A universal gun registry could only appeal to people who didn't care about costs or results.

The value of the FAC registry was apparent to me when, in the wake of the Montreal Massacre, the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. John Tait, gave me the task of reviewing the gun control package under development. One of the things I immediately wanted to know was how many Ruger "Mini-14's" -- the gun used by the Montreal murderer -- were owned by Canadians. The Mini-14 came into production about the time of the introduction of the FAC requirement, so the FAC system could provide a fairly accurate picture of the gun's distribution in Canada.

But when I asked the firearms team to get the information from the R.C.M.P., it turned out that there were dozens of reasons we couldn't have it. The computers were down; the FAC information hadn't been entered yet; there weren't enough staff to process the request; there was a full moon; and on and on.

After a week of this I made it clear that I didn't want excuses, I wanted the records. At which time a very senior person sat me down and told me the truth. The R.C.M.P. had, for some time, stopped accepting FAC records, and had actually destroyed some that it already had in its possession. The FAC registry "system" did not exist because the police regarded it as useless, had refused to waste any of their limited budget on its maintenance, and had taken steps to ensure that their political masters could not order its resurrection.

This spectacular bit of bureaucratic vandalism on the part of the police persuaded my Deputy and his Minister that we should concentrate on developing compliance with affordable gun control measures that could work. A universal gun registry could only appeal to people who didn't care about costs or results.​

Source: R.K.B.A Article, "Off Target"

 

[Sparkey]

It just seems to me that building a database that tracks violent criminals (or convicted drug felons) and the mentally ill (deemed dangerous to themselves or others) is a better use of our effort and tax dollar.

Such information would not prepare the way for any harm to lawful citizens, would act to further prevent acquisition of illegal firearms, could be used to help regulate private gun sales (which account for 40% of all and do not require a background check) as well as have the extra added incentive of being cheaper both in its creation and in its use.

Those who contemplate the creation of a new class of criminal out of otherwise law abiding citizens whose first reflex is to follow the laws of their country should pause long and hard and consider the cost, not only in tax dollars but in the intangibles such as loyalty, patriotism and freedom.

 

[Vanguard]

It just seems to me that building a database that tracks violent criminals (or convicted drug felons) and the mentally ill (deemed dangerous to themselves or others) is a better use of our effort and tax dollar.

Such information would not prepare the way for any harm to lawful citizens, would act to further prevent acquisition of illegal firearms, could be used to help regulate private gun sales (which account for 40% of all and do not require a background check) as well as have the extra added incentive of being cheaper both in its creation and in its use.

Those who contemplate the creation of a new class of criminal out of otherwise law abiding citizens whose first reflex is to follow the laws of their country should pause long and hard and consider the cost, not only in tax dollars but in the intangibles such as loyalty, patriotism and freedom.

The FBI already does that. All states report their stats to the FBI. This includes basic case file data such as suspect(s) name/race/DOB/SSN, offense committed, date of offense, etc. Even if you get charged with a felony, win your case and are acquitted, and the local/state system clears your record, the FBI will keep a record of your "incident" indefinitely.

 

[Sparkey]

Thanks, Vanguard. I thought that there was some difficulty in obtaining a complete records for patients suffering from mental illness still. Did that change?

When I gave my gun to my son, it was voluntarily done through a FFL. The cost was negligible ($30). We didn't have to do it that way but I wanted the transfer on record. There is some need for change (in my opinion) regarding private sales especially at gun shows. I would encourage the use of a transfer agent holding a Federal Firearm License so that all transfers of firearms are subject to background checks and to establish legal rights for possession. That's part of what I was talking about when I mentioned law abiding citizens whose first reflex is to obey the laws of their country. That's also one the differences between Canadian gun law and the US. The FFL will hold the record of the transfer of the gun (a 22 caliber ruger) but there is no central state or federal repository of records that he reports to.

As I understand it, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NCIS) is reasonably up to date and accurate regarding criminal records, but that is not the case regarding involuntary mental commitments. There are an estimated 3 million living Americans who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions. The NICS database only contains the names of about 90,000 of these individuals. There are only 17 states that provide information on involuntary commitment for inclusion in the NICS database. Many of the noncompliant states simply have not computerized their records on involuntary commitment. However, a large number of the noncompliant states are also grappling with serious health-information privacy issues and are reluctant to provide the required data to NICS before these issues are resolved.
Source: Guns and Ammo, "Mental Illness and Gun Ownership

To be fair, the article that I cited goes on to make a case against restricting citizens who have been involuntarily committed, and says that the responsibility of keeping guns out of the hands of the potentially dangerous mentally ill persons falls largely upon relatives and friends as well as medical personnel. The article is worth reading in its entirety.

 

[Drew]

Thank you my friend, I understand. Only by the time we come to beating swords into plowshares, there won't be any private farms left to use the plowshares on, or people to do any private farming.

I interpret this as suggesting that the "beating of swords into plowshares" lies in the future. I believe that time has already come. I think we disagree on the timing of Jesus rule - I believe He is already installed as ruling King over this earth. But perhaps to get into that debate would derail this thread.

 

[phantom309]

Again, this is all about proper reasoning. The fact that you can produce some data showing that shows a correlation between increased gun laws and increased crime is not much of a case. There can be all sorts of other reasons to explain this correlation - the increase in crime may have nothing to do with the increased restrictions on guns; it may arise by virtue of other factors (such as worsening poverty, to name just one example).

What is clear, I suggest, is this: many other nations, as prosperous as the USA, have achieved long term, globally lower crime levels than the USA even with heavy restrictions on guns.

If this is truly about proper reasoning,then explain why you continue to ignore the overwhelming facts and statistics concerning legal gun owners vs gun crimes and those who commit them.You can choose to do so,but it is in direct conflict of proper reasoning.Ill not waste my time citing the information you requested as it is abundantly available,both in this thread and in the FBI crime statistics database,easily googled.Its just simple fact that the number of legal owners/firearms heavily outweigh the number of criminal usages of guns.This is evident in parts of our country when the gun laws have flipped in favor of the criminals,look up the information for yourself..rather than demanding it from those here only to claim you dont have the time to read it.

You and others have mentioned other countries who have achieved lower crimes rates,though their gun policies are stricter.However,feedback from people in many of these places indicates general dissatisfaction with these policies due to criminal activity.I work with people from your own country,for instance, who genuinely wish that they had the gun freedoms that we in America currently enjoy and for similar reasons many here choose to own/carry.Aside from that your own reasoning can be applied to the matter.In these countries you claim are the better for gun bans,how can you prove the absence of guns is the key?It can be attributed to poverty level or other factors.Quite frankly all the information I read coupled with experience and common sense points to the opposite of your statements.

What is clear is that despite these facts and reasoning you still cling to the notion that were better off without guns..a stance that is not backed by facts,not validated by statistics and therefore relegated to the realm of personal opinion.

 

[phantom309]

I came across a blog this morning,written by a novelist with an extensive background in firearms both with the civilian and LE/Military communities.It basically addresses some of the anti-gun opinions and gives good reasoning as well as evidence on why gun bans dont work,complete with examples of countries who have tried with backfire results.

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/