Gun Control in the USA

[Dustoftheearth]

The argument that if you take away the guns, those with evil intent will always find another means to act is clearly a question-begging oversimplification.

One cannot simply assume this - it is clearly possible that if you take away the gun, the bad guy may not be willing to go to the trouble of finding another means. Common sense suggests that it is a lot easier to act on an impulse of rage with a gun than, say, with a knife. Its hard to kill someone with a knife - the gun makes murder quite easy.

I am sure in most cases, that if some deranged maniac went to a school or other place armed with knife, he would not get to wound or kill as many before he is taken out himself.

I guess it is a bit like saying, that if Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, they might as well let them have the nuclear weapons to do it.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

James Madison wrote of the Trust that the government of the United States of America has in its people:


The 'militia' is the people.

And were has that trust helped all those who have been slaughtered?

The world is under the influence of Satan, and you want to put your trust in man?

Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind And makes flesh his strength, And whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 "For he will be like a bush in the desert And will not see when prosperity comes, But will live in stony wastes in the wilderness, A land of salt without inhabitant.
Jer 17:7 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD And whose trust is the LORD.
Jer 17:8 "For he will be like a tree planted by the water, That extends its roots by a stream And will not fear when the heat comes; But its leaves will be green, And it will not be anxious in a year of drought Nor cease to yield fruit.
Jer 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
Jer 17:10 "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

 

[Drew]

I am sure in most cases, that if some deranged maniac went to a school or other place armed with knife, he would not get to wound or kill as many before he is taken out himself.

Of course! We need to keep emphasizing this rather self-evident bit of common sense.

I guess it is a bit like saying, that if Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, they might as well let them have the nuclear weapons to do it.

Not sure I understand this - what are you saying? I would explain things this way: saying that the "gun" is not the real problem because the bad guy will kill using some other means is like saying we should not worry about Iran having the atomic bomb since "they will use some other means". Clearly, the bomb is indeed part of the problem. As is the gun, I would suggest.

 

[Vanguard]

The world is under the influence of Satan, and you want to put your trust in man?

According to whom? If you ask an Orthodox Jew they will tell you that Satan is merely following God's orders, and that he can't do anything without God's permission. Be very careful when quoting "the world" because many would disagree with you.

Also, I can't find anywhere in the Bible where it says you can't defend yourself or your family. Don't take a verse out of context and "apply" it to a point.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

Of course! We need to keep emphasizing this rather self-evident bit of common sense.


Not sure I understand this - what are you saying? I would explain things this way: saying that the "gun" is not the real problem because the bad guy will kill using some other means is like saying we should not worry about Iran having the atomic bomb since "they will use some other means". Clearly, the bomb is indeed part of the problem. As is the gun, I would suggest.

Yes, that is what I was meaning thanks.
Not being very well educated, I often fail to put my point across clearly.

 

[Sparkey]

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are more than 310 million nonmilitary firearms in the United States [as of 2009].

Gun Sales are up:
Revenues for Sturm Ruger, one of the leading U.S. gun manufacturers increased from $146 million in 2004 to $329 million in 2011; another leading U.S. gun maker Smith & Wesson saw its revenues go from $120 million to $412 million in that same period.

Firearm-related murders are down:
The rate of firearms-related murders in 2011 was 3.2 per 100,000 people – a sharp decline from 1993 when the rate of firearms-related murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people. The number of firearms-related murder victims dropped from more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,903 in 2011.

39% of the applications to purchase firearms are denied because of felony convictions or indictments. Criminals do test existing laws, they are criminals, after all. Any attempt by Congress to enact new restrictions on gun purchases or ownership faces a reality -- America is a country in which many people own guns, weapons which will not simply disappear with the wave of a legislative wand.

Close the Loopholes:
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. It is not the licensed dealers that are the problem. They must perform background checks by law. The real problem comes when those without a firearm sales license wants to sell one or more guns. These people can sell guns (at a gun show or privately) without doing any kind of background check at all -- and this is currently legal. Private sellers can not knowingly sell to violent felons BUT the law does not even expect them to ask.

 

[Sparkey]

In order to succeed, we're going to have to stop vilifying the people who disagree with us and start trying to talk about how we can all solve the problems we want to solve while remaining true to our own values.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

According to whom? If you ask an Orthodox Jew they will tell you that Satan is merely following God's orders, and that he can't do anything without God's permission. Be very careful when quoting "the world" because many would disagree with you.

Hi Vanguard,

I am not concerned about what an Orthodox Jew might tell me, nor do I care who or how many disagree with me.

1Jn 5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the evil one.

Also, I can't find anywhere in the Bible where it says you can't defend yourself or your family. Don't take a verse out of context and "apply" it to a point.

I guess it depends on what you do to defend yourself or loved ones.

Do no sin.

We are told not to avenge ourselves, and not use evil for evil.

If we are not to avenge ourselves against someone who has done us wrong, then can it be right to punish someone who has not yet done us a wrong, but only threatened harm?

In other words, we are not to take an eye for an eye, nor a tooth for a tooth. Is it then right to take an eye or a tooth, because 'we fear' that someone might take our eye or tooth?

 

[Sparkey]

Of course! We need to keep emphasizing this rather self-evident bit of common sense.


Not sure I understand this - what are you saying? I would explain things this way: saying that the "gun" is not the real problem because the bad guy will kill using some other means is like saying we should not worry about Iran having the atomic bomb since "they will use some other means". Clearly, the bomb is indeed part of the problem. As is the gun, I would suggest.

What you are saying is that we should prevent all countries EXCEPT Iran from having nuclear weapons. You aim to disarm law-abiding citizens in the vain hope that this will somehow disarm deranged, would-be, mass murderers. I've not heard you say anything about actually disarming criminals, even though I've asked several times for details. What?!? Do you expect them to disarm voluntarily just because there is no longer any lawful private defense against them? That's why they pick children and no-gun zones like schools as their targets; random mass shootings are typically suicides augmented with multiple murders as a way of dramatizing the shooter’s pain and self-hatred.

The proposed "New Defense":

:crazy "Golly, I give up, there are unarmed men resisting me."​

 

[Drew]

What you are saying is that we should prevent all countries EXCEPT Iran from having nuclear weapons.

No, I am not saying this. I think all countries should dispose of their nuclear weapons.

You aim to disarm law-abiding citizens in the vain hope that this will somehow disarm deranged, would-be, mass murderers. I've not heard you say anything about actually disarming criminals, even though I've asked several times for details.

I do not believe I have ever claimed that I know the best way to disarm your entire society.

What is clear from the example of many other nations as advanced and prosperous as the USA is that one can indeed create a state of affairs where the law-abiding citizens are safer when the entire society is disarmed. I do not see how you can deny this.

The only argument that I think you have available to you is that, for some reason, the USA cannot transition to the state that all these other countries have achieved. Well, perhaps that's possible, but it sounds highly dubious.

 

[Vanguard]

In other words, we are not to take an eye for an eye, nor a tooth for a tooth.

I'm not Jewish. That is OT law, which only applies to Jews. As do the 10 Commandments (and it's "murder," not "kill").

Jesus only gives us 2 commandments in the NT: love God, love your neighbor.

I love God. I love my neighbors. But if a neighbor pulls a gun on me or my family, I'll send some .45 ACP his way...with love.

 

[Drew]

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.

Does Wayne Lapierre know better? Almost certainly, he does. But he is a "politician", and, sadly, this means that he will do what needs to be done to defend his position, even if the truth is sacrificed in the process.

This kind of slogan with the "good guys" and "bad guys" appeals to a very powerful tribal myth - that the world is made up of a "good us" and "bad them".

The reality, of course, is more complicated - the line dividing good from evil actually runs through each of us. But for Mr. Lapierre to acknowledge this - that the reality is that "good people" get mentally ill, or can explode in fits of rage - would threaten the position he is paid to endorse.

No. What Mr. Lapierre is appealing to is this comic book worldview where the good guys wear white and save the world from the bad guys.

Look: no one, least of all me, is denying that there is "good" and "evil" in the world. Or even that there are some people out there who clearly are more evil than others. But reality does not match the comic book view: those who slip into mental illness do not all wear black, and some otherwise very good people can become enraged over a cheating spouse.

And these "good guys" can then reach for the gun that is supposedly there to deal with the bad guys.

 

[Sparkey]

What is clear from the example of many other nations as advanced and prosperous as the USA is that one can indeed create a state of affairs where the law-abiding citizens are safer when the entire society is disarmed. I do not see how you can deny this.

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

 

[Sparkey]

Florida has issued the most carry permits–nearly 2 million and has revoked only 168 (0.008 percent) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.

Former Colorado Asst. Atty. Gen. David Kopel:

“Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.â€

An article on Michigan’s Right to Carry law:

“Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded.... National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.

 

[Sparkey]

You know, Drew, you're talking about removing a right that is protected by the Constitution, but beyond that, you're talking about taking away the ability to protect and defend against criminal action. You offer nothing in return except the idea that if magically all weapons disappeared people would be safer. You offer no proof that your contrived (impossible) scenario would help control crime in America and no method to accomplish your goal.

Years ago, my brother-in-law lived next door to me in the other half of a duplex. He was a known drug dealer. The police knocked on my door and asked for information about my brother-in-law. I wasn't much help but they told a story about a guy who had shot a deputy while breaking out of jail. They came to my brother-in-law's house because they thought the escaped criminal knew him. I told them that I had several weapons in my possession and would use them in self defense if need be.

They told me that it would not be enough if the guy was only on my porch, that I had to be in fear of my life in order to use lethal force in defense and left me their card so that I could call them if I saw anything suspicious. Nothing came of it. I never heard any more of the escaped convict and have never had to draw a weapon in defense. I do not think that my having weapons contributed to crime. So, I ask again, are you certain that removing my right to bear arms will prevent deranged murderers from hurting others? How?

 

[Vanguard]

It's easy to say "guns are bad and should be banned." There's good armchair quarterbacking on how to go about it. There's theories and propositions. Every single one of them is outside the realm of reality. If laws were passed that banned guns in the USA, here's what would happen:

1. Criminals would laugh at the laws and keep their guns.
2. Some citizens would turn their's over and become unarmed future victims.
3. Some citizens would not turn their's over, and then what? Send the cops/feds door to door confiscating registered guns? Now you have dead cops/feds/bystanders/etc. when the bullets start flying.

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

 

[Sparkey]

I've heard of a program in California that buys "assault weapons" that are voluntarily turned in. They give $200 in food (coupon, credit, not sure) in exchange for certain types of firearms. That's all well and good except when you stop and think that the population of California is greater than all of Canada. If they wanted to take 1 million weapons in this program it would cost more than 200 million in exchange. Nobody thinks this can be done.

 

[Knotical]

I've heard of a program in California that buys "assault weapons" that are voluntarily turned in. They give $200 in food (coupon, credit, not sure) in exchange for certain types of firearms. That's all well and good except when you stop and think that the population of California is greater than all of Canada. If they wanted to take 1 million weapons in this program it would cost more than 200 million in exchange. Nobody thinks this can be done.

This was literally happening in LA recently. There is even a report that a couple of people turned in an anti tank rocket launcher. But, of course since the program was "don't ask, don't tell" all the police could do is take it without question.

What civilian needs an anti-tank rocket launcher?

 

[Vanguard]

This was literally happening in LA recently. There is even a report that a couple of people turned in an anti tank rocket launcher. But, of course since the program was "don't ask, don't tell" all the police could do is take it without question.

What civilian needs an anti-tank rocket launcher?

Was it a modern one or an older one? It could have been a L.A.W. from the Vietnam era, or it could have even been an older one from WWII. Those can be bought, refurbished and made to work. The article did not give specifics.

If it was not a modern one, it doesn't stand a chance of putting a dent in an Abrams M1 tank. Even if it was a modern one, it stands little chance of doing anything to an Abrams.

Just saying...

 

[Obadiah]

Might not hurt an Abrams but since I drive a plain old pickup truck, I don't want to see the guy behind me on an LA freeway aiming one at me because I got carried away and cut him off!