Bring guns to church?

[Eddie_Mac]

All of that would be credible if gun ownership came with mandatory training in defense and an official commitment to own and carry a gun for that primary purpose. But that is the very thing that pro gunners protest against. They are saying that people should not be force trained or needs swear legally to any organised controls. That protest feeds people the sense that they have an unconditional right in service to themselves (and those that matter to them personally), rather than being a right in order to serve the state.

In Switzerland, where gun ownership is nearly as high as the US… every able bodied male is mandated to do military training where a true sense of selfless patriotic obligation is instilled in them. It’s not just a worn out platitude. The attitude towards guns is so respectful that despite their great presence in the community, there is very little abuse and carnage.

If the US took the 2ndA seriously and mandated all gun owners to do serious military training to include the true patriotic selfless code of a good militia man… it’s likely that the US would start to see a drop in random, senseless gun deaths also.

I see your point but no, it would not happen like you say.

The thug/gang banger/drug cartel/whatever do not fit into your scenario. The nirvana you speak of does not exist. I do not have the cite to back this up but I will try and fetch it. I read that up to 80% of crime in many areas is directly traceable to illegal immigrant criminals the national government has let stay. Regardless of the truth bad people do evil. Stop blaming the guns, please, LongingSoul. Blame Satan and his demons. This is a Catholic site, surely you have heard of Satan.

 

[LongingSoul]

Wrong.

The Second Amendment enumerates an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision stated such. The 2A has not been addressed very often by SCOTUS. Early on the court was leaning to a collective right but DC vs Heller and subsequently Chicago vs McDonald further addressed the individual right. McDonald also broached the Second Amendment incorporation to the states under the 14th amendment.

The Heller decision also stated that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

Your insistence that we are obligated to the state because of the 2A does not hold water. What holds water is that there never was supposed to be a standing army. There didn’t used to be. The Second Amendment ensures that we can protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. That is it. In a nutshell. We, the people. Fundamental right.

There has been some great legislation passed over the history of the US by visionaries that saw what the national government could do if WE did not keep it in check. The Civil War proved that governments need to be kept in check. Lincoln suspended Constitutional Law and declared Martial Law to “save the republic”. After reconstruction the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 to prevent the US military (the never supposed to be standing army) from being used against citizens. Many of us freedom loving citizens felt we had Posse to back us up in the event the shooting started.

Do you think that it would be possible for the US to protect itself adequately from foreign and domestic enemies without a standing army? Are you proposing that it should be disbanded in accordance with the terms of the constitution? I think that too much of your argument is based on fantasy and not reality. We live in a different world altogether and the threats and dangers to our way of life is far different to that of 3 or 4 hundred years ago. The US is now a thoroughly united country holding a powerful position in the world. The constitution is a document that naturally requires evolution afterall many of its fine principles are actually proudly called ‘amendments’… a term which means changes. So when you speak of ‘fundamental’ law, it’s just natural to understand that as meaning fundamental to the laws of the day. Not ‘fundamental’ as permanently immutable. That is why descriptions like ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘fundamentalism’ are so fearsome. They describe a cultish practice of literal interpretation of a thing that undermines the spirit of a thing which is really the fundamental feature.

Did you look up the III% like I asked?

I did look it up and it reminded me a lot of poor old Hiroo Onoda the 2nd WW Japanese officer who held his post in the Phillipines for 30 years after the war ended, refusing to surrender until a superior personally came and ordered him to in 1974.

Human beings are predisposed to peace and communion with each other. We are soldiers with a war mentality when the evil is a present reality and even in the midst of war, our goal is eventual peace. iii% seems to be thriving on the cult of war mentality even in peacetime from what I’m observing. I think that they would be of more benefit to the US to do what the English do and form a tradition of reenactment of famous battles or cordial war games where everyone gets together at the end of the day for a pint. Live out their need for battle in a peacetime manner.

 

[styrgwillidar]

… I think that they would be of more benefit to the US to do what the English do and form a tradition of reenactment of famous battles or cordial war games where everyone gets together at the end of the day for a pint. Live out their need for battle in a peacetime manner.

There are a lot of civil war re-enacments in the US. Good times to be had by all…

We have a fundamental disagreement, you see the appropriate response to the acts of evil men is to strip the rights and liberties from everyone. You would have me retain rights and liberties based not on my conduct, or the conduct of the law abiding - but stripped from me based on the acts of evil men.

I see the appropriate response to the acts of evil men is to punish them, not everyone else along with them.

 

[CatholicSheila]

crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Lots of countries more dangerous than the US.

Lots of countries? Let’s compare like for like in your link. Out of the OECD nations only 4 had higher homicide rates than the US. Russia, Chile, Mexico and Brazil. Looking at the graph in your link I’d say that 29 of the OECD nations have a homicide rate at least half (and many significantly less than half) the rate of the US. Considering there are only 35 OECD nations in total, that is a significant number.

Lots of countries? Not in the developed world.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Lots of countries? Let’s compare like for like in your link. Out of the OECD nations only 4 had higher homicide rates than the US. Russia, Chile, Mexico and Brazil. Looking at the graph in your link I’d say that 29 of the OECD nations have a homicide rate at least half (and many significantly less than half) the rate of the US. Considering there are only 35 OECD nations in total, that is a significant number.

Lots of countries? Not in the developed world.

And as another poster pointed out in another thread the statistics depend on how the countries report came. Not all are the same either. The U.S. counts suicides as homicides. Japan does.not.

 

[LongingSoul]

We have a fundamental disagreement, you see the appropriate response to the acts of evil men is to strip the rights and liberties from everyone. You would have me retain rights and liberties based not on my conduct, or the conduct of the law abiding - but stripped from me based on the acts of evil men.

I see the appropriate response to the acts of evil men is to punish them, not everyone else along with them.

There are different types of rights. There are inalienable rights and their are conditional rights. EddieMac informs me that owning a gun is considered a fundamental right under your law but that doesn’t mean inalienable. Laws are required to protect and serve the common good and the rights to a thing must likewise be accountable to the common good. They are still conditional upon the welfare of the whole community as demonstrated by the gun controls already in place.

The only debate that is relevant is does the presence of a large volume of guns in the community create more danger, fear, insecurity, injury and fatality than they resolve? The rights to gun ownership have no force distinct from that question other than if you want to extend the question to its limit you could ask does gun ownership genuinely ensure that the collective untrained civilian gun owners of the US, constitute an effective and formidable defense against the government army should it turn on ‘the people’? If the answer to that was indeed yes, there would be some justification to retain a gun culture that has a lot of collateral injury and death attached. However, not a few observers of this situation, doubt very much that gun owners have the capacity to defend the State against the government army.

The question is are you really more safe, peaceful and secure with that volume of guns in the civilian community. It’s obvious that punishing the evil people is not a deterrence to the evil committed with guns. It’s like drugs. Many would like to see them go unregulated and legal however when a thing has an intoxicating property (as certain types of guns do)… laws which depend on the goodwill and civil conscience are largely ineffective.

The fact is that things that have an intoxicating aspect require regulation and control for the sake of the whole community. Other than the natural inalienable rights, no right has any force beyond its service to the common good.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Do you think that it would be possible for the US to protect itself adequately from foreign and domestic enemies without a standing army? Are you proposing that it should be disbanded in accordance with the terms of the constitution? I think that too much of your argument is based on fantasy and not reality. We live in a different world altogether and the threats and dangers to our way of life is far different to that of 3 or 4 hundred years ago. The US is now a thoroughly united country holding a powerful position in the world. The constitution is a document that naturally requires evolution afterall many of its fine principles are actually proudly called ‘amendments’… a term which means changes. So when you speak of ‘fundamental’ law, it’s just natural to understand that as meaning fundamental to the laws of the day. Not ‘fundamental’ as permanently immutable. That is why descriptions like ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘fundamentalism’ are so fearsome. They describe a cultish practice of literal interpretation of a thing that undermines the spirit of a thing which is really the fundamental feature.

I did look it up and it reminded me a lot of poor old Hiroo Onoda the 2nd WW Japanese officer who held his post in the Phillipines for 30 years after the war ended, refusing to surrender until a superior personally came and ordered him to in 1974.

Human beings are predisposed to peace and communion with each other. We are soldiers with a war mentality when the evil is a present reality and even in the midst of war, our goal is eventual peace. iii% seems to be thriving on the cult of war mentality even in peacetime from what I’m observing. I think that they would be of more benefit to the US to do what the English do and form a tradition of reenactment of famous battles or cordial war games where everyone gets together at the end of the day for a pint. Live out their need for battle in a peacetime manner.

Where did I say to get rid of the standing army. Stop putting words in my mouth and reading nonsense into my posts.

We will never agree. At least I have the courtesy to not denigrate your country and way of life.

If humans are predisposed to peace then what is going on n the Middle East and large urban cities and areas of Mexico where the cartels rule?
I’m done.

 

[LongingSoul]

And as another poster pointed out in another thread the statistics depend on how the countries report came. Not all are the same either. The U.S. counts suicides as homicides. Japan does.not.

This site separates the homicides and suicides…
gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So in the US in 2013,

Total gun deaths were 33,630
Gun homicides were 11,203
Gun suicides were 21,175
Accidents were 505

In Japan in 2008,

Gun homicides were 11
Gun suicides were 47
Accidents were ** 7**

Considering that Japans population is just under half the US… the figures and whether they are suicide or homicide really is irrelevant in making any point.

 

[LongingSoul]

Where did I say to get rid of the standing army. Stop putting words in my mouth and reading nonsense into my posts.

We will never agree. At least I have the courtesy to not denigrate your country and way of life.

If humans are predisposed to peace then what is going on n the Middle East and large urban cities and areas of Mexico where the cartels rule?
I’m done.

I’m sorry that you have taken it personally. I really do see it as a philosophical and political issue rather than a strictly American cultural issue. I’m just one little voice but I really don’t want any false notions of rights to put my countries strict gun controls in danger. The majority of us value it so fervently.

 

[Bradski]

Did you look up the III% like I asked?

I knew I shouldn’t have. I really shouldn’t have. Then I did. Somebody should tell you that almost everyone outside of the US (and probably a great deal of people in the US as well) find these type of sites…how shall I put this without causing offense…?

Nope. I can’t think of any way to put it at all that won’t cause offence. Suffice to say that if were to put together a web site that was meant to satirise the type people who support these type of web sites, then I don’t think that most people would be able to tell the difference.

It’s bemusing how you think that pointing people to links like that are in some way aiding your case.

 

[Gorgias]

No, only when they apply for a license. You are re-assessed every 12 months. You will be re-assessed if you apply for a different licence (if you already have one that allows target shooting weapons and you want to apply for one that allows a shot gun). And how do you know there isn’t capacity to do this?

Around 45% of the households in the U.S. have firearms. Are you really thinking that there’s the capacity for annual mental health checkups for 25-40% of American adults? In other words, you think there’s excess capacity on that order of magnitude in the U.S.? That just boggles the imagination…

Then extend it to gun shows

It seems that that’s the direction it’s going – 1/3 of states already require background checks for private sales (at least, at gun shows).

and make everyone apply for a license. That way, all guns, in theory, will eventually be registered and the police will have a record of who owns what.

Hang on a second, though: what does ‘registering’ accomplish? I can see the desire to have background checks. But, in the context of ‘control’, what does having the police know who have guns manage to do, in order to prevent homicides?

 

[Bradski]

Around 45% of the households in the U.S. have firearms. Are you really thinking that there’s the capacity for annual mental health checkups for 25-40% of American adults? In other words, you think there’s excess capacity on that order of magnitude in the U.S.? That just boggles the imagination…

Apparently 22% of Americans own guns. newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822.

If you take that to be 22% of the adult population, you are looking at about 50 million people. Now I would imagine that checking your police record would take no time at all. Let’s face it, they do it while you’re sitting in your car if you’ve been pulled over. Likewise restraining orders. And they don’t do a mental health checkup as in an interview with a shrink. They just check to see if you have been registered with any mental problems that would prevent you owning a gun.

Is that sufficient? Probably not in some people’s minds, but at least it’s a reasonable step that allows you to own guns and puts into place reasonable restrictions on those who shouldn’t.

Maybe you don’t have to have to renew your license every year. Just when you get a new gun. Just a one off process. And it gets’ revoked if you are convicted of violence. So it would take time. So start now so you can get it done ASAP.

Hang on a second, though: what does ‘registering’ accomplish? I can see the desire to have background checks. But, in the context of ‘control’, what does having the police know who have guns manage to do, in order to prevent homicides?

Just like registering your car. When you sell it, you make sure that the licensing authority knows that someone else has bought it so you are not liable for running a red light or getting zapped by a speed camera. The authorities, by getting you to license a gun, and registering it to you, know it’s in safe hands.

If that gun is consequently used in a shooting because you sold it on the black market, you get in trouble. So if you sell it, you’d make sure the police knew who the new owner was so then they can ensure he’s not a drug dealing, wife beating maniac out on parole.

 

[Gorgias]

Apparently 22% of Americans own guns. newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822.

If you take that to be 22% of the adult population, you are looking at about 50 million people. Now I would imagine that checking your police record would take no time at all. Let’s face it, they do it while you’re sitting in your car if you’ve been pulled over. Likewise restraining orders. And they don’t do a mental health checkup as in an interview with a shrink. They just check to see if you have been registered with any mental problems that would prevent you owning a gun.

Is that sufficient? Probably not in some people’s minds, but at least it’s a reasonable step that allows you to own guns and puts into place reasonable restrictions on those who shouldn’t.

OK… got it. It seemed like you were saying that there should be a an interview with a psychologist every year, and that seemed excessive.

Maybe you don’t have to have to renew your license every year. Just when you get a new gun. Just a one off process. And it gets’ revoked if you are convicted of violence. So it would take time. So start now so you can get it done ASAP.

So… I did the research on how it works in PA, and it seems that their standards are similar to those in many states. Although there are variations (some are more restrictive, others have little or no restriction), this is the current situation as I understand it:

There are federal regulations in place that require a background check at the time of a purchase of a firearm. If one buys a firearm to be used for hunting, for example, no other ongoing checks are required. (Of course, there are restrictions on what firearms may be used in hunting: in PA, you can’t take a semi-auto pistol or a semi-auto rifle into the woods, AFAIK.) If one buys a handgun, the question becomes ‘how are you intending to use it?’ If one intends to carry the handgun concealed, PA requires a person to obtain a ‘License to Carry Firearms’ (LTCF). This application kicks off a process to do precisely the things you mention – the state determines whether there are any legal restrictions on the person that would prohibit him from carrying a firearm. Once granted, the license to carry is good for five years (unless revoked); every five years, the person has to renew the license (which kicks off the checks again).

Similar processes exist in other states – in some, the process is discretionary, and even if a person has nothing in their record that indicates that they should be restricted, the state tends to say ‘no’. Many debate whether that’s in the spirit of what the 2nd amendment intends.

However, it seems that what you’re asking for is largely the case in the U.S.; we’re not the “Wild Wild West” that non-Americans presume that we are.

More to the point, however: even with these regulations in place, criminals still obtain and use guns illegally. That’s why American firearm owners bristle when folks suggest that additional restrictions be imposed. If criminals already have the means to obtain and use firearms illegally, then additional restrictions will restrict law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Would these restrictions prevent mass murders from their intended killing sprees? It’s a good question – but, as experience has shown us, those bent on breaking the law find ways to do it, even in the face of restrictions against the kinds of things that they’re trying to do.

The authorities, by getting you to license a gun, and registering it to you, know it’s in safe hands.

No, they know it’s in the hands of someone who hadn’t previously committed a crime. Big difference.

If that gun is consequently used in a shooting because you sold it on the black market, you get in trouble.

That’s already the case. The check at the time of purchase already enables law enforcement to know who the legal owner of the firearm is. You seem to be requesting regulations that are already in place.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I knew I shouldn’t have. I really shouldn’t have. Then I did. Somebody should tell you that almost everyone outside of the US (and probably a great deal of people in the US as well) find these type of sites…how shall I put this without causing offense…?

Nope. I can’t think of any way to put it at all that won’t cause offence. Suffice to say that if were to put together a web site that was meant to satirise the type people who support these type of web sites, then I don’t think that most people would be able to tell the difference.

It’s bemusing how you think that pointing people to links like that are in some way aiding your case.

I never really expected anyone from Australia to accept what I said and I really do not care what you think about me, my country, or my beliefs. I have never worried about what someone thought of me.

Respectfully

 

[Bradski]

No, they know it’s in the hands of someone who hadn’t previously committed a crime. Big difference.

Granted. But I doubt that whatever system anyone came up with, it wouldn’t be foolproof. But I think that putting these sort of systems in place changes the mindset of people as well. People treat the ownership of a gun not just as a right, because it’s in the Constitution, but something that can be considered a privilege as well.

In passing, let me briefly relate a story that happened in Australia just last week. Someone was waiting for a train at a suburban station and he dropped something. As he bent to pick it up, a gun fell out of his pocket. He quickly picked it up and concealed it again.

Someone saw him and immediately told a station official. The whole track was immediately shut down, nobody was allowed anywhere near the station and quite a few very heavily armed police turned up and confronted the guy.

As it turned out, the pistol was a replica, but there’s the difference between our two countries. Someone with a gun in a public space wouldn’t raise an eyebrow in the States, but in Australia, public transport and a chunk of the area around a station was immediately closed down and armed police called in because…someone said they thought they’d seen a gun. It was the lead story in a couple of news time broadcasts.

I don’t know about you, but I feel a lot safer in a country where I know it is exceptionally rare for anyone to be carrying a gun and being in a country where anyone could be.

 

[Hans_W]

… I don’t know about you, but I feel a lot safer in a country where I know it is exceptionally rare for anyone to be carrying a gun …

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t know about you, but I feel a lot safer in a country where I know it is exceptionally rare for anyone to be carrying a gun and being in a country where anyone could be.

I don’t know. I’ve never been mugged in the US. But here is a list of countries where I have either been pick pocketed or stolen from.

Italy, England, France.

And in Mexico, where it is largely illegal to own guns, many are violently attacked or even killed.

Of course the flipside is this. The us has the highest car jacking by far of any country. I have never seen that actual stat but it has to be true. And yet many (including me) carry in our cars. Go figure.

I don’t know how good a deterrent a gun toting population is, but I can tell you in the US when there are people with guns out there and some of them with bad intentions. I feel pretty good having my guns close at hand or on me. I say this as a father and husband.

 

[LongingSoul]

Me too.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t know how good a deterrent a gun toting population is, but I can tell you in the US when there are people with guns out there and some of them with bad intentions. I feel pretty good having my guns close at hand or on me. I say this as a father and husband.

The suspicion of outside observers is that the volume of guns in the community has fed the increase of gun crime and gun culture which has led people to feel safer with more guns in the mix. It looks very much like a vicious cycle. To break the cycle as with any destructive cycle, involves courage and belief in a greater good over ones immediate personal sense of security. It involves a greater identity with the community and what’s best for it and for the generations to come. I’m seeing that with how antibiotics are regarded now. Drs are so hesitant to prescribe them, encouraging people to persist with rest and more natural remedies to overcome infections than to resort to antibiotics first up. We lose touch with our natural abilities to resolve disease when we introduce hard core weapons as the first line of defense.

 

[Hans_W]

… The us has the highest car jacking by far of any country. I have never seen that actual stat but it has to be true. And yet many (including me) carry in our cars. Go figure…

Also not sure on car high jacking. I think South Africa could beat you.
I lived there for many years. One day, at a red traffic light, the driver of the car next to me pulled out his gun and started polishing it. That’s when I thought it is time to get out.