Gun Control

[jgh7]

Gun control in America is a very hot topic right now. Do religious views factor at all into swaying someone to be for or against gun control?

I'm also just plain interested in the topic of gun control and whether it's right or wrong. I know this site is meant for topics to be relating back to religion, but for this topic in addition to religious views I'd also just like to know people's general opinions of gun control.

[OpenYourEyes]

My view based on the facts and common sense..

Gun control does not lead to less violent crime. Even if we banned all guns, violent crime would simply be done with other weapons

Tactically-speaking, guns are very effective at self-defense because it minimizes damage to yourself and while maximizing damage to a suspect, if the suspect doesn't also have a gun. In other words, I can avoid hand-to-hand combat with a suspect and therefore reduce my chances of getting hurt or worse (hand-to-hand combat increases risk of getting hurt since you are on an equal playing field with the suspect).

- We should maximize gun possession in the hands of GOOD guys and minimize gun possessions in the hands of bad guys.

- The United States have high gun crime rates but the problem once again appears to be that we have problems keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys as the following report shows:

CHL=concealed handgun license

The most recent report available is from 2012, and it shows that for the vast majority of crimes in Texas during that year, none or almost none of the convictions were of CHL holders. That year, there were a total of 63,272 convictions statewide, of which 120, or 0.1897% were of CHL holders.

Breitbart Texas reviewed the reports posted by DPS, and during the entire period from 1996 until 2012, the percentage of convictions committed by CHL holders never even reached one-half of one percent. As National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke wrote, “No wonder [Moms Demand Action] wanted to pretend it didn’t exist.�

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/ ... testimony/

Read for yourself where Texas compares gun crimes committed by lawful gunowners vs unlicensed/unlawful gunowners: (lawful gunowners account for less than 1% of total guncrime in Texas!):
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/re ... vrates.htm

[bluethread]

Yeah, we know it's too late and there's thousands of innocent humans walking around today with a bullseye somewhere on their body that will accept bullets in the near future. So stop characterizing gun control proponents as expecting what they really DON'T expect gun control regulations to do. We're happy with lessening the number of casualties and deaths.

I do not think we are that far apart. There is plenty of mischaracterizations on both sides. That part of my post that you emboldened was a mirror statement designed to show that mischaracterization. Whether it is fear mongers or socialists, unlimited guns and/or legislation are not the answer.

Stop shouting down the house about overturning the Second Amendment and mischaracterizing the genuine concern we have for you, and you and you to not end up a victim while you're out with your wife and children, or you buddies because those whackjobs are not going to stop being born or stop being radicalized. We're overly willing to take on mitigation and strengthening the current gun control regulations we have that aren't even being followed.

Personally, I am not shouting down the house about overturning the Second Amendment. I am shouting down the house about how both sides misstating the second amendment. Yes, it does not justify an individual having an arsenal in his basement. However, it has nothing to do with hunting either. It is about states rights. The primary purpose of the second amendment is to enforce the tenth amendment. What is ironic is that in all of this back and forth about personal ownership of firearms, the federal government has been permitted to steal from the people and then uses that money to get the states to to give up their 10th amendment rights for a mess of pottage. Had the rights of taxation and internal policing stayed with the states, much of this argument about national gun laws would not be a problem.

[Hamsaka]

Yeah, we know it's too late and there's thousands of innocent humans walking around today with a bullseye somewhere on their body that will accept bullets in the near future. So stop characterizing gun control proponents as expecting what they really DON'T expect gun control regulations to do. We're happy with lessening the number of casualties and deaths.

I do not think we are that far apart. There is plenty of mischaracterizations on both sides. That part of my post that you emboldened was a mirror statement designed to show that mischaracterization. Whether it is fear mongers or socialists, unlimited guns and/or legislation are not the answer.

Ah, I get it about the mirror statement, and just as much that the gun-control 'side' mischaracterizes as direly, even though I agree with it, in principle. Guns are already controlled anyway, and many of us like-minded folk are clear that the controls we DO have aren't being enforced due to funding and beaurocracy and the convenience of the free market economy lol.

It's when either side engages in pure rhetoric and polemics that we appear to be at odds. Our priorities appear to be differently situated.

[OpenYourEyes]

Each side may have their own reasons but it is clear that the 2nd amendment was put in place to offset any attempt of tyranny by a government (domestic or foreign). Also, a 'militia' should not be regulated by the powers that may cause the tyranny; to do so would be like a sports team possessing knowledge of all of the plays of their rival team, and then being given the power to restrict their rival team to it (by laws). Of course, this would be a tactical advantage.

Anyways, there are arguments for and against guns on the level of the general public so it's not just government that's involved. People need to realize the FACTS that more guns in the hands of good and law abiding citizens does not lead to more gun crime. I've already stated facts that shows that a majority of gun crimes are committed by non-law abiding citizens (those who acquired their guns illegally).

Many in the general public are usually for banning assault rifles but in my view it's an unnecessary restriction and one born out of fear-based conclusions of recent mass shootings. First off, most gun crimes are committed with handguns and are oftentimes carried by mass shooters, e.g. Jared Loughner. The argument also tends to be that there's no use for them or it's going overboard. Ak47s, AR15s, and other assault CIVILIAN-style rifles can serve a purpose, even if the purpose will rarely arise. I can think of scenarios where you have multiple assailants and perhaps even with body armor and you're engaged with them out in the open. You're going to need something more than a handgun to penetrate body armor and a gun where you don't have to reload as much. It's also not inconceivable for terrorist cells to attack in groups, even if we've been lucky that our recent mass shootings have involved lone shooters.

Lastly, when will our federal government stop supplying Arab rebels, in which some later become our terrorist enemies, with weapons while wanting to take away the weapons for it's own (American) citizens?

[Hamsaka]

My view based on the facts and common sense..

Gun control does not lead to less violent crime. Even if we banned all guns, violent crime would simply be done with other weapons

. . . that don't slaughter near as many people at a time. Mitigation is a common sense solution we can all get onboard with.

Tactically-speaking, guns are very effective at self-defense because it minimizes damage to yourself and while maximizing damage to a suspect, if the suspect doesn't also have a gun. In other words, I can avoid hand-to-hand combat with a suspect and therefore reduce my chances of getting hurt or worse (hand-to-hand combat increases risk of getting hurt since you are on an equal playing field with the suspect)

.

Sure, we ladies are generally no match for a motivated male who intends to attack. I am neutral about owning hand guns for self-protection or sport, or rifles for hunting, even though I find hunting animals execrable lol.

I see no reason for Sig Sauers and assault-type semi-automatic rifles for 'civilian use'. Even then, I get it about gun collectors and all that. I wish there were some way law abiding gun collectors could own Uzis and the like, whatever fire arm they enjoy collecting or firing for sport -- without arming radicalized and/or mentally disturbed persons. They are far too easy to purchase, they are designed to kill as many people with as little effort as possible and thoroughly.

- We should maximize gun possession in the hands of GOOD guys and minimize gun possessions in the hands of bad guys.

In an ideal world where this is possible without the predictable consequences, yes. We don't live in that world, and I'd wager a LOT of 'good guys' don't want to own or use guns, much less have the constitution to USE them on a 'bad guy'. I'll settle for gun collectors who have passed a critical background check and abide by strict safety measures. Really, no one else wants them, or the idea of them except collectors/sport shooters and maniacs

- The United States have high gun crime rates but the problem once again appears to be that we have problems keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys as the following report shows:

CHL=concealed handgun license

The most recent report available is from 2012, and it shows that for the vast majority of crimes in Texas during that year, none or almost none of the convictions were of CHL holders. That year, there were a total of 63,272 convictions statewide, of which 120, or 0.1897% were of CHL holders.

Breitbart Texas reviewed the reports posted by DPS, and during the entire period from 1996 until 2012, the percentage of convictions committed by CHL holders never even reached one-half of one percent. As National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke wrote, “No wonder [Moms Demand Action] wanted to pretend it didn’t exist.�

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/ ... testimony/

Read for yourself where Texas compares gun crimes committed by lawful gunowners vs unlicensed/unlawful gunowners: (lawful gunowners account for less than 1% of total guncrime in Texas!):
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/re ... vrates.htm

Excellent point about lawful CHL gun owners and them using guns in the commission of a crime, like almost never. Self evident, really.

So there's something we are NOT doing to prevent the 'bad guys' from getting their paws on guns illegally. Or, something we are doing. Gun procurement and ownership is a 'right' in America. That's the problem right there.

It was vitally necessary in the late 18th and early 19th century, and remains so today in lots of areas, rural living with livestock, for instance. But not in urban and suburban America. And we Americans get really antagonized about 'rights' being infringed upon. To the point that arming the 'bad guys' is considered a necessary evil so the people who just want their darn guns cuz they like them, darn it, can have them.

The gun-rights 'apologetics' are less rational than Flat Earth apologetics. Seriously. Just admit y'all (generic) like gunz and want them that badly. Even though there is no legitimate need for them apart from certain situations, including self/livestock defense and gun collectors.

[OpenYourEyes]

I see no reason for Sig Sauers and assault-type semi-automatic rifles for 'civilian use'. Even then, I get it about gun collectors and all that. I wish there were some way law abiding gun collectors could own Uzis and the like, whatever fire arm they enjoy collecting or firing for sport -- without arming radicalized and/or mentally disturbed persons. They are far too easy to purchase, they are designed to kill as many people with as little effort as possible and thoroughly.

I don't think the bold part is a good argument for banning semi-automatic assault rifles and one reason is because it applies to handguns, as well. All guns are designed to kill or severely injure as many people as the shooter is able to shoot but you have mentioned before that you aren't for banning all guns. I think the decision should be based on the practicality of the gun, that is, is it useful for self-defense. From there you and many others may say that all that's needed at the least are handguns and that's based on the common threats that typically face in the US (one or two criminals trying to commit a crime of physical harm against someone). In most cases, a handgun would suffice,


I know many like you see no use in civilian-style assault rifles but you're probably basing that on the conditions of your environment. If so, I find this reasoning to be faulty because your environment is not the same environment as everyone else nor can we reliably predict if or when your environment can change, and that if it does change, that we can change our minds in a split second to suddenly start allowing assault rifles or more.

[help3434]

Gun control is a Biblical issue.

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?�

They said, “Nothing.�

He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.�
(Luke 22:35-37 ESV)

Jesus taught that it is permissible to own weapons for self defense. There should be restrictions to keep criminals and children from obtaining guns and some weapons such as machine guns should be banned but a law abiding citizen should be able to legally obtain weapons so he can protect himself.

Whenever a mass shooting takes place there are demands for increased gun control but such controls are attacking the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause. I am 74 years old and I remember a time when guns were easy to obtain and yet we didn't have the mass shootings we have today. There was one other difference. Most people believed the Bible and the standards of morality it taught.

Standards such as God punishing Israel for NOT committing total enough genocide against the Cananites?

Today people know little about the Bible and many reject it. As a result children grow up without solid standards of right and wrong. The real problem we face to day isn't the availability of guns but the fact that so many people don't see anything wrong with using them to kill innocent people.

Call me crazy but I think that teaching children right and wrong from a book that depicts God Himself telling his followers to commit mass murder is an awfully poor way to prevent more mass murder. The recent shooting in Florida, which is the deadlist mass shooting in US history, was committed by a believer in the Koran, a book largely plagiarized from the Bible that also depicts God telling people to kill.

[Bust Nak]

- We should maximize gun possession in the hands of GOOD guys and minimize gun possessions in the hands of bad guys.

- The United States have high gun crime rates but the problem once again appears to be that we have problems keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys...

Then surely the first step is to ban the sale of handguns to non CHL holders? How is that not a no-brainer?

[myth-one.com]

- We should maximize gun possession in the hands of GOOD guys and minimize gun possessions in the hands of bad guys.

- The United States have high gun crime rates but the problem once again appears to be that we have problems keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys...

Then surely the first step is to ban the sale of handguns to non CHL holders? How is that not a no-brainer?

Of course, all four votes regarding the second amendment failed to pass today.

Interestingly, the lead story on one of the TV News stations was entitled:

GOP AND NRA AGAINST COMPROMISE

Why even mention the NRA?

I heard that 90% of the public supported this compromise.

Who do the GOP congressmen really work for?

Us or just them?

What % of the public are members of the NRA?

A wild guess is less that 90%.

Duh?

Follow the money?

[bluethread]

- We should maximize gun possession in the hands of GOOD guys and minimize gun possessions in the hands of bad guys.

- The United States have high gun crime rates but the problem once again appears to be that we have problems keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys...

Then surely the first step is to ban the sale of handguns to non CHL holders? How is that not a no-brainer?

Of course, all four votes regarding the second amendment failed to pass today.

Interestingly, the lead story on one of the TV News stations was entitled:

GOP AND NRA AGAINST COMPROMISE

Why even mention the NRA?

I heard that 90% of the public supported this compromise.

Who do the GOP congressmen really work for?

Us or just them?

What % of the public are members of the NRA?

A wild guess is less that 90%.

Duh?

Follow the money?

It appears that none of the four bills were voted down in the senate. (Congressional Votes Database - GovTrack.us https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes) What does appear to have happened was that neither side would permit the other sides bills, two each, to be voted on. The votes were to stop debate not to pass the bills. So, it appears what the senators wanted was more face time. Of course, the media chose to show mostly the face time of the democrats. As far as I can tell, the polling does not include information regarding the rights of citizens to appeal being put on a no buy list by the administration. Given the fact that the administration gave the Orlando shooter a pass and US senators have been put on lists, assurance with regard to the government handling of such lists is indeed warranted, IMO.