Gun Control in the USA

[Drew]

A simple google of zip guns loads of information ....

If a bad guy wants a gun he will have it...

No one has denied that people can make zip guns.

 

[Drew]

You haven't detailed the plan, have you given serious thought to the issues surrounding the national round-up of guns you propose for America?

It would, of course, be complex, but I see no reason why, if the political will existed, your country could not dramatically reduce the number of guns in it.

 

[Sparkey]

We're done on this particular issue. I have made my case as clearly as I can, and I see no point in pursuing this particular aspect of the issue.

Cop-out much? I'll remind you that you brought the subject up and you were the one who wanted to bring the dissenting opinion of legal expert Jeffrey Toobin as authoritative.

 

[Mike S]

How do you know this? There are some significant ways in which the alcohol / drug analogy probably breaks down, related to matters of technology.

On the surface of it, it certainly appears to be much easier to produce illicit alcohol / drugs than to produce illicit guns. A gun, especially an assault weapon, is a relatively complex item of technology that typically requires a relatively complex manufacturing process. Now perhaps it is easier to make a gun in your basement than I imagine, but that case needs to be made.

These differences are important. To the extent that it is technically difficult / expensive / risky to create a banned item "in your basement", the banning of the item should indeed have a beneficial effect.

I'm confident it will be ineffective because of experience in attempting to ban other objects.

But there's a more important aspect of this issue which has been brought up many times here. The ability to own and carry firearms is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution. Discussing banning guns is not a matter of the efficacy of banning, it's not a casual "let's try this. Oops, that didn't work. Oh well, no harm done" matter. It probably wouldn't mean a crap to you if we lose a Constitutional right of self-defense, but believe me, it matters to us. And, guess what, we ain't going to do it!!!

 

[Sparkey]

It would, of course, be complex, but I see no reason why, if the political will existed, your country could not dramatically reduce the number of guns in it.

So then you suggest that the US should make the owners of more than 200 million guns criminals? Really? This is too much, even for you.

Why not advocate joining one of the "26 Acts of Kindness" movements instead of suggesting such nonsense?
LINKS:

• 26 Acts of Kindness
• Viral Movement for 26 Acts of Kindness

 

[handy]

I'm confident it will be ineffective because of experience in attempting to ban other objects.

But there's a more important aspect of this issue which has been brought up many times here. The ability to own and carry firearms is an inalienable right guaranteed by the Constitution. Discussing banning guns is not a matter of the efficacy of banning, it's not a casual "let's try this. Oops, that didn't work. Oh well, no harm done" matter. It probably wouldn't mean a crap to you if we lose a Constitutional right of self-defense, but believe me, it matters to us. And, guess what, we ain't going to do it!!!

Yep...

It would be a huge mistake on the part of us Americans to start jettisoning our Constitutional rights.

 

[Sparkey]

Welcome Handy, Just saw part of your discussion against repealing the 2nd Amendment in a similar thread:
Re: Petition to repeal the Second Amendment.
Well said.

 

[Drew]

Need to back off for a bit - hope to return.

 

[Mike]

I have a question for you, Sparrow or anyone else who is against gun control. The U.S. Constitution affords the right to bear arms, but our citizens aren't walking around town with rocket launchers. Obviously, it would be illegal. As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't expand in detail the types of weapons we can own. Someone or some committee drew a line between permitted and not permitted, so it would seem.

Besides the fear of giving any kind of ground, what is the objection to drawing the line before assault rifles or any semi-automatic rifle, at least? I've read a few times here that they account for a small percentage of murders. Maybe because there are a smaller number in proportion to handguns in the hands of citizens, but why is that relevant anyway? What in the world does anyone need that kind of gun, besides of course for obvious reasons?

We Americans can't arm ourselves with any kind of weapon, can we? Why can't pro-gun people agree that assult/semi-automatic rifles should not be lawful? It's an honest question.

 

[reba]

Mike the second amendment was for a well armed militia.. This implies protection of ,for our freedoms.

We are voting away our rights as fast as we can... as a peoples there will soon not be enough folks who value the Constitution to battle any one when it becomes necessary.

Way back in the mid 50s (Krewcheff) (SP) the Russian leader said something to the effect well will bury you from the inside.... Sadly it seems to me he was right...

 

[Knotical]

Though I do not support a repeal of the second amendment I do support a ban on assault rifle. There is no practical reason for a civilian to own such a weapon, even for hunting purposes.

 

[Mike]

Knotical, thank you for being a voice of reason on a point that should be obvious, IMHO. If this were agreed upon, I believe we'd finally have some honest dialog about gun control.

Mike the second amendment was for a well armed militia.. This implies protection of ,for our freedoms.

We are voting away our rights as fast as we can... as a peoples there will soon not be enough folks who value the Constitution to battle any one when it becomes necessary.

Way back in the mid 50s (Krewcheff) (SP) the Russian leader said something to the effect well will bury you from the inside.... Sadly it seems to me he was right...

I rarely part ways with the conservative platform, and the reason I seem to be on the other side of the fense on this issue is that I don't see it as conceding anything to the government. But the Constitution! But the Constitution! As I said in my previous post, we have limits to the ways we can arm ourselves. Do pro-gunners believe it's a violation of their constitutional rights for any kind of weapon at all to be illegal? I hope not!

I know it is seen as ultra-liberal, but if the line can be drawn at one point, why can't it be drawn at another? Why can't the line between backed off behind guns?

Mark asked Drew earlier if he expected illegally held guns to just disappear, but I said earlier I expect this to take a few generations. Maybe less or maybe more, but I would like to be part of a change that my descendants will appreciate. My country has a very unhealthy obsession with guns, and it's not getting any better from what I can tell. It's getting worse.

I don't see this as giving in to the government or I would object to it. I see it as something that will benefit the society is live in.

 

[Nick]

I certainly understand that there is a difference between American culture and Canadian culture. But please tell us exactly how such differences make it remotely sensible that tens of thousands of regular human beings (teachers) should enter a classroom armed. These are not trained gun users. Besides, they are people who are no more spared the ravages of mental illness or simply evil intent than anyone else.

I agree that people who are not trained in gun use should stay away from guns. Solution: train teachers in proper gun use.

I don't like this idea either, Drew. But let's face it: we keep hearing of more and more massacres in the United States and they keep happening in places where people are unarmed - movie theatres, schools, college campuses.

The basic flaw of in the "teachers should be armed" argument is the very same flaw that exists in the "I need a gun in my house" argument.

Please explain the flaw.

And the error is in forgetting that in the 99.99999% of the time the gun is not needed to fend off a bad guy, it is still there.

Still there to be used in anger against a cheating spouse (for guns in the home).

Still there to be used by a mentally deranged teacher (for armed teachers);

Still there to be used in a moment of impulsive rage (both scenarios);

Still there to be used to commit suicide.

There is so much incorrect reasoning used to support the "pro-gun" position, I do not know where to begin.

Well please begin, because if I am a teacher in the US and if an armed person comes into my classroom, I will want to defend myself and the kids Now I understand there are some mentally-ill people out there. Do checks on them. I stated earlier in this thread that armed teachers may be the next step, but it does not come without its own questions.

But are you willing to tell me that you - Nick - truly believe that even in American culture, the overall benefits of arming teachers (and I do not deny that in rare scenarios, it might be a benefit) outweigh the negatives.

I think it might be worth a try. Kids are getting slain here, Drew. This is serious business,

I am prepared to presented peer-reviewed data that shows that having a gun in the house actually increases your risk of violent death.

Why would we expect anything different in the classroom?

I would love if you could present a peer-reviewed study on that. It will only be acceptable if it is a study on the US.

 

[Vanguard]

And the error is in forgetting that in the 99.99999% of the time the gun is not needed to fend off a bad guy, it is still there.

Would you please cite your source for that statistic so that I can check it against the FBI's crime stats database, since I have full access and all.

In my experience as a law enforcement officer, the opposite is true. Whoever holds the gun has the power.



Do I believe that teachers need to be armed? No I do not.

Armed security and/or police assigned to schools, I would agree with (some have this anyway). I would also agree that principals should have a shotgun locked in a safe in their office, just in case, along with the proper training on how to use it. I would also issue them a level IV tactical vest they can slide over their clothes. A level IV vest will stop rifle rounds. They are heavy, but we're only talking about a few minutes of wear while you confront said gunman.

Another option is to put deadbolts on classroom doors. It may not stop a maniac, but it would certainly slow them down.

The argument may be, "if you banned guns, you would not have to go to those extremes." Passing a law that bans guns and having people actually turn them in are two different things. Law enforcement does not have the manpower to go door to door collecting guns from registered owners. Furthermore, such a law would only get cops killed in their attempts to collect said guns.

I work in the real world and deal with violence everyday. I see things most people never get to see.

 

[Sparkey]

I have a question for you, Sparrow or anyone else who is against gun control. The U.S. Constitution affords the right to bear arms, but our citizens aren't walking around town with rocket launchers. Obviously, it would be illegal. As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't expand in detail the types of weapons we can own. Someone or some committee drew a line between permitted and not permitted, so it would seem.

Besides the fear of giving any kind of ground, what is the objection to drawing the line before assault rifles or any semi-automatic rifle, at least? I've read a few times here that they account for a small percentage of murders. Maybe because there are a smaller number in proportion to handguns in the hands of citizens, but why is that relevant anyway? What in the world does anyone need that kind of gun, besides of course for obvious reasons?

We Americans can't arm ourselves with any kind of weapon, can we? Why can't pro-gun people agree that assult/semi-automatic rifles should not be lawful? It's an honest question.

Before I answer, I'd like to ask what your definition of a semi-automatic rifle is and why would you want it banned?
I've already stated that I don't own any firearms but I do enjoy going shooting with my son. The weather is a little cold so we occasionally go to an indoor range, but come the Spring, and since we live near the country there are lots of places (including property owned by friends) that we will go. Would your proposed ban also require my son to turn in his semi-automatic 22 caliber long rifle? Why or why not? The term "assault rifle" is a hot-button for gun-control, so I'd ask what you meant by it and what you would like to accomplish by banning them?

By the way, I've heard similar arguments from anti-gun ppl regarding all handguns. They say that nobody goes hunting with a pistol. If we banned all semi-automatic weapons, all handguns and allowed only single shot rifles or shotguns to be carried by law-abiding citizens, would your purpose be accomplished?

My thought is that we as a society need to concentrate more on the cause and less on the tools. It may seem trite to some, but prayer (to me) is the best answer - that the Lord heal our land from its many diseases. My personal thought is that a restoration of the relationship between father and son would go much further in accomplishing your good purpose than disarming my son would.

Mike, have you watched the video I posted in this thread: Post #93 ?

 

[Sparkey]

Though I do not support a repeal of the second amendment I do support a ban on assault rifle. There is no practical reason for a civilian to own such a weapon, even for hunting purposes.

Careful, sometimes gun-control people are sneaky. They don't want to stop at banning what they term 'assault rifles', but want supporters of the 2nd Amendment to give way inch-by-inch so that their real agenda can remain hidden. Here is what one has said, "Besides the fear of giving any kind of ground, what is the objection to drawing the line before assault rifles or any semi-automatic rifle, at least?" Notice the use of the phrase, "at least."

 

[seagullplayer]

How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.
People that want to end private gun ownership and change the 2nd amendment won't try all at once. They are sure to loose that war.
So they want to take away the rights one at a time, in smaller battles they hope to win. But I am afraid their goal remains the same.
And many very well intentioned people buy in.

What new rule/law could have stopped the resent killings? He used an "assault" type rifle, but his mother had other guns, they where not his to start with. Had he not chosen that weapon, he would have taken another, maybe two.
You can't stop the intent to kill with a rule. If you could "thou shalt not kill" would have worked long ago.

Do I own guns, yes.
Do I hunt, yes.
But I don't own any of the type guns that are being talked about getting banned or restricted, and don't ever plan to get any.

 

[Mike]

Before I answer, I'd like to ask what your definition of a semi-automatic rifle is and why would you want it banned?

I'll address your questions here and look forward to your response to mine that I posed. I wasn't trying to be sneaky about anything. Those were legitimate questions that I'm genuinely wondering about.

I'm not an expert on guns. In my mind, a semi-automatic rifle is one where you pop in a cartridge and run off the clip in seconds. Why would I want them banned? I honestly think this is a better question posed the other way around, but I'll say this. In the hands of citizens, I can't believe there is any useful (and noble) purpose for them. I've seen video of people shooting targets like it's for sport. That's not a good enough reason to allow these weapons in the hands of people who might want to do more.

People say they are rarely used for assault. "If" this is true, this would be largely symbolic to separate society as a whole from the gangster image and mentality. I just cannot comprehend the thought process in the decision to allow them in the first place.

To me, allowing high level weapons like this, is like liberal politicians raising taxes or starting entitlement programs. It's almost impossible to convince them to back them back down. The powers that be effectively created an entitlement mentality to these automatic weapons. If citizens were given the right to own small guided missiles, there would come a day when this is seen as an entitlement.

Would your proposed ban also require my son to turn in his semi-automatic 22 caliber long rifle? Why or why not? The term "assault rifle" is a hot-button for gun-control, so I'd ask what you meant by it and what you would like to accomplish by banning them?

I think I need to know more about your son's semi-automatic before I answer that question.

More on your second question about assault rifles below.

By the way, I've heard similar arguments from anti-gun ppl regarding all handguns. They say that nobody goes hunting with a pistol. If we banned all semi-automatic weapons, all handguns and allowed only single shot rifles or shotguns to be carried by law-abiding citizens, would your purpose be accomplished?

I said this early on in this thread. What I would allow is this: shotguns (not sawed off) and long rifles that can load 2 shells/bullets at a time, both specifically made and used for hunting
AND
single shot handguns as opposed to the ones where you pop in the cartridges.

I'll be honest with respect to your post to Knotical. Ideally, I would like to see all handguns out of the hands of citizens, leaving only the hunting weapons I mentioned above. But I would not plan to ever push further if we got down to the chamber style handguns and set the bar there. I couldn't promise that I wouldn't change my mind later and want to ban handguns, but today I would be very satisfied.

What I want to accomplish is first to eradicate the gun obsession we have in America by establishing a new "normal". BTW, to help this shift, I would put new restrictions on violent video games and movies that glorify killing for the sake of killing and make murderers the heros. Secondly, and this would take time as I said, I want to thin out the millions of weapons stored throughout our land and establish a more peaceful way of life for my children's children.

Our children are 11, 14 and 17. I'd be in favor of an armed guard(s) or officers at there schools, but only if they had received high level training and achieved strong proficiency.

Again, I don't see this as giving away rights TO THE GOVERNMENT. Guns taken out of the public would be destroyed and money paid for them as an incentive. It's not like our taxes which the government will use for them to waste.

Mike, have you watched the video I posted in this thread: Post #93 ?

Not yet, but I will.

 

[Sparkey]

Mike, thanks for your honest and courteous reply, I'm almost ready to take back my comment about anti-gun people (yourself included) being sneaky. I do appreciate the acknowledgement that you'd like to see all handguns banned from citizens as well as what you call "assault rifles".

What I fail to understand, or perhaps what I think you've failed to come to grips with, is the fact that there are over 200 million guns (I've read that this is an FBI statistic) in the US. This estimate is for lawfully owned firearms. When I asked you "to what purpose?" what I hoped you might say was that you (like I) want to see violent crime reduced. From that admission it was my hope that I could challenge you to take a careful look at what would have to be accomplished before criminals would no longer have any access to the guns you wish to ban.

President Clinton signed a 10-year Assault Weapons Ban into law back in 1994. I didn't care because for the most part it changed the cosmetic look of various guns. The reason that I call it a "so-called" assault weapons ban is because true assault weapons are fully automatic. People (lawmakers included) have blurred an already existing line and seek to blur it even more.

Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

Here's the 1994-2004 classification for pistols: Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Here is a pic of a pistol I bought when I was a young man. I've given it to my son and we've replaced the barrel with an aluminum (much lighter) barrel. Is it an "assault weapon" ???

Well, under the old 1994 law, no. It does have detachable magazines (10-shot) but only 1 of the other features (the new barrel comes threaded). I hope you can see my concern about the so called assault weapons bans. Definitions change. What was a treasured keepsake could be demonized but it's still my first weapon, still an heirloom (it's about 30 years old) and still my son's favorite gun.

Here's a link to Wiki on the subject: WIKI: Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

Even today I don't have issue with cosmetic changes except that I think I'm applying my tastes to others. I can agree with the sentiment that there is a certain image that seems to encourage gang activity - but I can't believe that a feeling is enough. The statistic that I've heard (mentioned in the video that I posted) was that the FBI has determined that so-called 'assault weapons' are used in only 2% of violent crimes with guns.

 

[Drew]

I agree that people who are not trained in gun use should stay away from guns. Solution: train teachers in proper gun use.

I don't like this idea either, Drew. But let's face it: we keep hearing of more and more massacres in the United States and they keep happening in places where people are unarmed - movie theatres, schools, college campuses.

Yes, but to give regular citizens assault weapons? I suggest it is self-evident that the solution you propose is clearly unworkable. As an aside, Nick: I trust you are aware that in other countries than the USA, this idea is generally greeted with peals of disbelieving laughter. There is, I suggest, a funny "group psychology" whereby a group of people - in this case the gun people - gain a kind of comraderie through the adoption of a clearly absurd position. I work in an engineering company that is in the business of "security systems". Most people here are 30 - 50 year old men, many with a military background. If ever you would expect a "sympathetic" environment to the "gun position", you would expect it here. But, in my experience, the people here all think this idea of arming teachers is, frankly, laughable. Anyway....

Train teachers, nurses, priests and the like to use assault weapons? Do you realize the cost that would be incurred? Besides, I suggest that the training would be very demanding. We are not teaching people how to bake a cake. People need to be trained to master their anxiety, exercise discretion under severe conditions of stress, etc. I cannot stress enough how particularly difficult I believe it is to train people to make life and death decisions in a split second in a complex and disordered environment. I am not an expert in this, but I would bet the military and police training related to when to use a weapon is complex and demanding. To suggest that we should "train" teachers to properly use weapons in a classroom setting strikes me as exceedingly challenging.

And, of course, we should not even be talking about this, especially on a Christian forum. If anybody should be fully behind the beating of guns into plowshares, it should be those who claim to follow Jesus - the same Jesus who explained the lack of armed resistance of His followers by saying those followers were members of a different kingdom.

Try as I might, I cannot see any kind of acceptance of guns in the general population constitutes direct disobedience to the gospel calling.