Gun Control in the USA

[Sparkey]

By the way, I've heard of programs that allow people to turn in illegal weapons for destruction (some even offer cash) and no-questions-asked. I'm all for it. Getting illegal weapons off the street makes sense to me.

My disconnect comes when people try to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, saying that this will prevent future crime. If a Christian owns a weapon and keeps it for lawful purpose (be it recreation, self-defense or as a collector of heirlooms) how can taking it away help the situation? How will rendering an old man like myself defenseless prevent crime? Of course, the fact of the matter is that I don't own a gun, but you get my meaning.

Somehow we've found ourselves in a situation where a false black/white dichotomy is in play. People have begun to see the issue in terms of "Pro-Gun" and "Anti-Gun" with no middle ground. This simply isn't the case.

July 24, 2012 - Mayors Against Illegal Guns released the findings of a recent survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out of dangerous hands. The survey's key findings include that 87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun. Source: Poll: Mayors Against Illegal Guns

 

[Drew]

If a Christian owns a weapon and keeps it for lawful purpose (be it recreation, self-defense or as a collector of heirlooms) how can taking it away help the situation?

Precisely because there is every reason to suspect (and the data I have seen supports me on this) that a weapon purchased for legitimate self-defence (granting for the sake of the argument that there is such a thing) or for a collection, is available for use to shoot a cheating spouse, for a child to find and injure himself with, for a suicidal person to take action, etc. etc.

We really need to think properly about this: it is simply incorrect to focus on a narrow dimension of the problem. This is all about asking the correct questions.

Here is the incorrect question:

Can a gun be used for legitimate self-defence, or for sport, or for a collection?

Here is, I suggest, the correct question:

Do the legitimate uses of a gun outweigh the attendant risks?

I happen to think the answer is "no", but we need to start by asking the right questions. Many gun advocates argue as if guns magically disappear for the 99.9999% of the time they are not being used for arguably legitimate purposes.

 

[Sparkey]

Many gun advocates argue as if guns magically disappear for the 99.9999% of the time they are not being used for arguably legitimate purposes.

You've hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. Guns will not magically disappear and taking them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will not eradicate violent crime.

Drew, have you considered more reasonable proposals that deal with enforcing existing gun laws or strengthening them?
Here are a couple real-life actions that I find no trouble supporting:

The Fix Gun Checks Act would repair our nation’s broken gun background check system by taking two simple steps. First, the bill would provide stronger incentives for state and federal agencies to get all the necessary records about individuals who are barred from owning handguns into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Second, the bill would require a background check on every gun sale.

Oppose Concealed Carry Reciprocity National concealed carry reciprocity interferes with the rights of states to control their own public safety laws. In 2009 proposed legislation in the U.S. Senate was defeated that would have interfered with the right of states to control their own public safety laws. The Thune Amendment would have forced law enforcement to recognize concealed carry permits issued by every other state, including states with the weakest rules.

Close the "Terror Gap": More than a decade after 9/11, the federal government can stop suspects on terror watch lists from getting on airplanes, but it can't stop them from buying firearms. Legislation endorsed by both the Bush and Obama Administrations that would close the terror gap has been pending in Congress since 2007. Congress should make it law this year.

Oppose the "ATF ‘Reform’ Act" The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Reform Act of 2011 would tie the hands of law enforcement and codify special protections for the one percent of federally licensed gun dealers responsible for 57 percent of the guns involved in crimes. The act would protect dealers who break the law repeatedly, and treat serious violations —like selling a gun without a background check—as minor violations with trivial penalties. The bill would also make it nearly impossible to impose any sanctions on lawbreaking gun dealers by requiring ATF to meet an unreasonable burden of proof to show that dealers are violating the law. Far from reforming the ATF, this law would undercut the work career law enforcement officials are doing to detect and deter gun trafficking.

Oppose The "Boren" Amendment: The Boren Amendment is an appropriations “policy rider” that would prevent law enforcement from enforcing a program the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) proposed to detect and fight illegal gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico. The Amendment would have cut off funding for enforcing the proposed ATF gun reporting rule.

Tiahrt Amendment The Tiahrt Amendments are provisions attached to federal spending bills that make it harder for law enforcement officers to aggressively pursue criminals who buy and sell illegal guns. The amendments restrict cities, states and even the police from fully accessing and using Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) gun trace data, require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to destroy certain background check records within 24 hours, and block ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft.

Gun Show Loophole Currently, licensed gun dealers are required to run criminal background checks on all buyers, but a loophole in the law enables criminals to avoid these checks if they buy from gun-sellers who don't have licenses. Often operating at gun shows, these unlicensed sellers give criminals the opportunity to sidestep the background check system and easily purchase guns. Congress should close the gun show loophole.
______________________________________________________

According to the website, FixGunChecks.org, a project of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bi-partisan coalition of more than 550 Mayors across the country have joined together to form a common bond around what they call one simple concept: respect the rights of responsible law-abiding citizens and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, gang members, drug abusers, or anyone who just may be dangerous.

Law enforcement officials say the investigation into internet gun sales found a vast and largely unregulated market for illegal guns, with 62 percent of sellers willing to commit a felony by selling firearms to people who likely could not pass the background check. Source: Mayors Against Illegal Guns

Private transactions account for 40 percent of the nation’s gun sales, according to the investigation of illegal online gun sales report. These sales are not subject to background checks. I think eliminating this type of loophole is something that both gun-owners and anti-gun people can agree upon and closing this loophole would create a substantial barrier to criminals who try to buy weapons illegally.

 

[Sparkey]

Many gun advocates argue as if guns magically disappear for the 99.9999% of the time they are not being used for arguably legitimate purposes.

Now, before you object to my previous post, I should admit that I intentionally dismissed the thrust of your point. I did so because I honestly can not agree with your position that criminalizing the owners of more than 200 million guns in America is even possible. But if I were to answer you on a personal level, I would tell you that when I bought my 22 caliber pistol (so many years ago) I also bought trigger locks and used them. Not only that, but the bullets were never stored in the same place as the gun and that they too were kept locked up. The trigger-locked pistol was also stored in a locked case. I have never had a weapon in my home while children were present (I gave my pistol to my best friend who locked it up on his attic) and recently retrived it to give it to my son, who is a responsible (more so than me) gun owner.

These precautions were voluntary, are you certain that your argument about the "99.9999% of the time" that my gun was not held in my hand constituted a real danger to you or others? Can you honestly argue that I've somehow contributed to violent crime? If your thoughts were made into law, would putting me in jail prevent any of the several tragedies mentioned in this thread? I think no.

 

[Sparkey]

Here is the incorrect question:

Can a gun be used for legitimate self-defence, or for sport, or for a collection?

Here is, I suggest, the correct question:

Do the legitimate uses of a gun outweigh the attendant risks?

Here is an answer found on my daughter-in-law's Facebook page. She is a sweetie and would not advocate harm to anyone, not even the proverbial fly.

 

[Sparkey]

In the wake of the recent school shooting I wanted to check on my son and see what his thinking was. I've previously presented him as a responsible gun owner and I hope this unedited portion of our conversation helps others understand this to be the case. My son has a concealed carry permit and has never been arrested. He does not use drugs. He is a young man who this coming March will turn 29 years of age, is married, going to college and has no kids.

I asked him what his thoughts were about taking his gun to school.

I might say to myself “you could become the next hero, if something tragic where to happen"

But the answer is always the same, No! I will not bring a gun to school because it would be breaking the law. If someone did find out I had my pistol with me, I could be demonized like some crazed lunatic, but even if nobody found out, I still believe in this government. I still believe in the laws, and being a good person. I’m not willing to break the law because I’m a concealed carry permit holding, law abiding citizen! I have faith in the government.

It’s just sad that the same government doesn’t believe in me. We don't need gun free zones we need a government that has faith in its people.

The reason that I mention my son so often is because of my belief that the real cause of violence in America is the major disconnect between father's and sons. The bible promises that this will be rectified. Listen to the voice of God: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." - Malachi 4:5-6 KJV

That is my prayer, that the Lord turns our hearts, the hearts of the fathers and the hearts of the children --> back toward each other. The blessing that comes from that heavenly act will resolve the cause of the conflict. In the meantime I advocate for common sense laws that respect the rights of responsible law-abiding citizens and work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Drew]

You've hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. Guns will not magically disappear and taking them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will not eradicate violent crime.

That was not my point! I suggest that it is indeed possible to "remove" guns from society (although it would not be easy and would take time).

My point was that the gun advocates focus on the legitimate value of a gun in the circumstances where it could be put to "good" use (e.g. defending your home) and forget (or more likely intentionally ignore) the fact that for 99.9999 % of the time, the gun is not needed for legitimate reasons, but remains there to be abused.

 

[reba]

History shows us it is possible... Gun control was a popular thing 1930s

 

[Drew]

[*]Address social problems as cause not the tools used

This argument appears over and over and over again.

Yet it is clearly not correct - at worst it is misleading and at best its incomplete. Its an example of an over-simplification that has a superficial appeal. Kind of like the "you can't tell me what to do with my body" slogan as used by some pro-choice people.

The problem is this: this "argument" overlooks the possiblility that taking away the tool will indeed do a lot to solve the problem.

Imagine that people were going around neighbourhoods blowing up houses with dynamite. Obvious solution: do not let everyday people have dynamite. That would indeed solve the problem as it would make it exceedingly difficult to blow up a house without dynamite and there is arguably no legitimate need for most people to have dynamite (they could be licenced only to professional construction people).

The point is this: no matter how ill-intentioned as person is, sometimes taking away the tool is indeed an effective, inexpensive way to deal with a problem. The way this "the tool is not the problem" argument slogan works is by ignoring this possibility.

 

[Sparkey]

Predictably, Drew objects!

That was not my point! I suggest that it is indeed possible to "remove" guns from society (although it would not be easy and would take time).

My point was that the gun advocates focus on the legitimate value of a gun in the circumstances where it could be put to "good" use (e.g. defending your home) and forget (or more likely intentionally ignore) the fact that for 99.9999 % of the time, the gun is not needed for legitimate reasons, but remains there to be abused.

Asked and answered, Drew. Asked and answered: See Post #127. It starts with "Now, before you object..."

 

[Drew]

Drew, have you considered more reasonable proposals that deal with enforcing existing gun laws or strengthening them?
Here are a couple real-life actions that I find no trouble supporting:

I am entirely in favour of all your points, although I see them as only a partial solution. But, again, all the things you suggest seem sensible to me, and I would heartily endorse them. I happen to think they do not go far enough but I can recognise the value in them.

 

[Drew]

Predictably, Drew objects!
Asked and answered, Drew. Asked and answered: See Post #127. It starts with "Now, before you object..."

OK, sorry. I did not read that post yet.

 

[Sparkey]

This argument appears over and over and over again.

Yet it is clearly not correct - at worst it is misleading and at best its incomplete. Its an example of an over-simplification that has a superficial appeal. Kind of like the "you can't tell me what to do with my body" slogan as used by some pro-choice people.

The problem is this: this "argument" overlooks the possiblility that taking away the tool will indeed do a lot to solve the problem.

Imagine that people were going around neighbourhoods blowing up houses with dynamite. Obvious solution: do not let everyday people have dynamite. That would indeed solve the problem as it would make it exceedingly difficult to blow up a house without dynamite and there is arguably no legitimate need for most people to have dynamite (they could be licenced only to professional construction people).

The point is this: no matter how ill-intentioned as person is, sometimes taking away the tool is indeed an effective, inexpensive way to deal with a problem. The way this "the tool is not the problem" argument slogan works is by ignoring this possibility.

I'm still waiting on the details of your imagined plan to (without resorting to the use of magic) cause guns to disappear in the US. I asked in post 98 for the details, remember? You seem now to imagine an inexpensive way to accomplish your pipe dream. Care to enumerate?

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

 

[Sparkey]

I am entirely in favour of all your points, although I see them as only a partial solution. But, again, all the things you suggest seem sensible to me, and I would heartily endorse them. I happen to think they do not go far enough but I can recognise the value in them.

:p Good. I see these various enumerated plans as essential to the common ground we share and as such they constitute the only real plan that gun-owners and anti-gun people can agree on and accomplish in the near future.

I also respect your right to hold an opinion that is different than mine. Just seems to me that peeling back the rhetoric and actively pursuing the goal of getting weapons out of the hands of criminals is the common sense way to step toward our mutual goals.

There are lots of posts in this thread, here is the link to the one that Drew and I agree on: Post # 126.

 

[Drew]

By the way, we also have a baseball bat next to our bed. Statistically more people are killed with baseball bats each year than guns.. Imagine that huh? Yet you never hear of a baseball bat primarily identified as a weapon.

I would like to see the source for this information.

According to the Center for Disease Control, there were about 31,000 gun deaths in the USA in 2009. Are you telling us that more than 31,000 are killed with baseball bats in the US in a year? That's about 100 a day!

I am not saying I know better, but that sounds suspicious.

POSTSCRIPT: I have data that demonstrates that the claim is incorrect - gun death greatly outnumber baseball bat deaths, by a factor at least 5 to 1.

 

[Drew]

Just seems to me that peeling back the rhetoric and actively pursuing the goal of getting weapons out of the hands of criminals is the common sense way to step toward our mutual goals.

I agree. From a practical perspective at least, I believe it is probably necessary to "compromise" on this issue.

 

[Sparkey]

I agree. From a practical perspective at least, I believe it is probably necessary to "compromise" on this issue.

You are by no means the "worst" that I've encountered. Read what one Anti-Gun person said when he called for the murder of NRA Members (this from the Texas Democratic Party leader himself): Texas Democratic Party leader calls for shooting NRA members This same "leader" denounced the NRA as "nothing but a domestic terrorist organization."

cf. that extreme position with the Poll Results previously posted:

Poll: Mayors Against Illegal Guns where we see:

• 87% of NRA Members agree that Support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.
• 75% of NRA Members agree that Concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have NOT committed any violent misdemeanors, such as assault.

There is a false dichotomy - a black and white fallacy that is being used to whip people into a frenzy. This is simply a lie that is used to polarize people into taking extreme positions they might otherwise ignore. There are crazies on both sides of the issue. Let's remain solid in support of respect for law-abiding citizens as well as laws that work to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals. Gun owners and Anti-gun people can readily agree that nobody wants to put more weapons into the hands of criminals. Period.

 

[Sparkey]

History shows us it is possible... Gun control was a popular thing 1930s

History also shows that during that time unscrupulous weapons salesmen sold military grade machine guns (true assault weapons) intended for use in World War I (especially the Thompson Submachine Gun) to criminals. The result was that gangsters and bank robbers were often better armed than many police forces (who may have only had side arms, or a rifle or shotgun at best) and could pretty much rob banks with impunity.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

Yes, if America got rid of their precious guns, you would still have murders, but you perhaps would not have as many. Even if one precious life was saved by banning guns, would that not be worth doing it?

Is the ‘if they are going to kill, they will kill’ and excuse to make it easy for them?

Is the life of even one child, a price worth paying to keep your so called rights to bare arms?

 

[Nick]

Yes, but to give regular citizens assault weapons? I suggest it is self-evident that the solution you propose is clearly unworkable.

Hold up a second there! You're putting words in my mouth! I never said that teachers should be armed with assault weapons. I'm thinking more of things like pistols, revolvers, maybe a shotgun. But my preference is for there to be proper armed security at schools, and as someone else said maybe a shotgun in the prinicpal's office. Perhaps arming the teachers themselves is a bit over the top. But the essence is clear: schools need better security.

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....

*sigh* we've been through this already. In many other cournties, yes it is laughable. My country included. But the US is a different kettle of fish and should be treated as such.

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.

I think my first point answers this part.

Can you provide the peer-reviewed study you talked about earlier?

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.

I am well aware of your theological position on this. And while I agree that Jesus does not advocate violence, defending oneself, and one's family and one's classroom of children (to which they have a duty of care to) is not violence, it is self defense.

And FYI the Kingdom hasn't fully arrived yet.