DEAR AMERICA: Here's Why Everyone Thinks You Have A Problem With Guns

[Prodigal_Son1]

What you are asking for would be difficult, how would you yourself do a background check on everyone that might want to buy your gun from you? But the real problem is, you’re focusing on the wrong problem here. Bad guys are going to get guns if they want to. They get drugs if they want to. Bad guys are bad guys. I was physically sick to my stomach when I heard someone say pedophilia was a disease and not the persons fault, then I found out how prevalent this thought is. We have a sin problem not a gun problem. For all of the atheist out there, we have a societal discord problem, not a gun problem. You are looking at this from a view that, I’m going to guess, doesn’t have a background knowledge of gun. If I am wrong I apologize. Bad guys will find a way to be a bad guy. Trying to insulate ourselves by passing laws that will only hurt people that are law abiding, isn’t the answer. Please look at the facts. Look at Australia. Why did the terrorist, gasp yes I did call the terrorist, use bombs? Why can’t we see the true issue?

When one has a gun shipped, at least in this state, it has to go through a gun dealer. It would be a minor inconvenience for a law abiding citizen to take a gun to a dealer so the transaction could be completed, in my honest opinion, especially if it could have any impact on preventing criminals from purchasing guns.

To say they get drugs anyways, it apathetic. We don’t give up the good because of shortcomings. Do we give up on abortions? It’s legal, and they’re going to do it anyways.

Look at the bombs. What good did guns do in that instance?

Even as a gun owner, I would have no problem with the extent of laws like Australia has. We are a people of life, not a people planning for death, even someone else’s.

 

[LilyM]

What you are asking for would be difficult, how would you yourself do a background check on everyone that might want to buy your gun from you? But the real problem is, you’re focusing on the wrong problem here. Bad guys are going to get guns if they want to. They get drugs if they want to. Bad guys are bad guys. I was physically sick to my stomach when I heard someone say pedophilia was a disease and not the persons fault, then I found out how prevalent this thought is. We have a sin problem not a gun problem. For all of the atheist out there, we have a societal discord problem, not a gun problem. You are looking at this from a view that, I’m going to guess, doesn’t have a background knowledge of gun. If I am wrong I apologize. Bad guys will find a way to be a bad guy. Trying to insulate ourselves by passing laws that will only hurt people that are law abiding, isn’t the answer. Please look at the facts. Look at Australia. Why did the terrorist, gasp yes I did call the terrorist, use bombs? Why can’t we see the true issue?

Bad guys do tend to drink drive, embezzle and get drugs if they want to as well. Yet we still insist not only on having laws against these things on the books, but on constantly tweaking them, usually to make them tougher but always to try to make them more effective.

We don’t simply wash our hands of the problems and give up on trying for better legal solutions. If we do, on gun crime or any other type, we may just find, like Pilate did, that the blood of those victims of the drink drivers, drug dealers and mass shooters does not wash off, as Jesus’ blood did not wash off.

 

[perpetual200]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

International crime statistics are slippery things. You will note however how low the US homicide rate is in absolute terms relative to countries around the world, even to quite a few “industrialized” countries. (Russia’s homicide rate is over twice the US, according to this table, anyway). There are doubtless many reasons that affect these numbers. We cannot underestimate cultural and moral differences. Thomas Sowell has pointed out that Britain’s homicide rate has ALWAYS been lower than the US, even when both countries had virtually non-existent gun laws. I have had reason to read old medical journals from the 1830s and 40s and according to the monthly coroner’s reports for the city of New York, there were many months when there were ZERO homicides, despite terrible poverty, low education levels, and no gun control.

 

[St_Francis]

Bad guys do tend to drink drive, embezzle and get drugs if they want to as well. Yet we still insist not only on having laws against these things on the books, but on constantly tweaking them, usually to make them tougher but always to try to make them more effective.

We don’t simply wash our hands of the problems and give up on trying for better legal solutions. If we do, on gun crime or any other type, we may just find, like Pilate did, that the blood of those victims of the drink drivers, drug dealers and mass shooters does not wash off, as Jesus’ blood did not wash off.

The problem is that embezzling, etc, are all immoral in and of themselves. Thus it makes sense to have a law against these activities. But having a gun in one’s possession is not in and of itself immoral.

Robert Sock’s orginal article showed that well over 150 million or slightly fewer people either own a gun or live in a household with one. And yet the number of firearms-related violent incidents (some form of violence occurred which may or may not have involved an actual firing of the firearm) is at the very highest about 1/2 million out of the entire population of over 300 million people, and includes events of suicide, defensive uses of firearms, suicide, etc, as well as use by those outside the reported firearms owners. That’s a ration of 1/2:300., or even 1/2:150 million. Out of 150 million, fewer than 500,000 are involved with an incidence of violence which includes those in which firearms are used defensively.

WRT criminal use of guns, over 39% of firearms used are obtained illegally, and over 39% are indeed obtained privately, usually from friends or families. Now, before you leap on this, if you have a couple of crooks, are they going to abide by a law to run a background check on the receiver of the fun? The only ones who will be concerned about following the law are those who are already law-abiding people, who are so much less likely to commit a crime.

The law would have accomplished nothing, and I objected to it because it was just time-wasting grandstanding on the part of politicians. They have jobs that they should be doing, and their time would have been better spent on important issues, like doing something about the economy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

When one has a gun shipped, at least in this state, it has to go through a gun dealer. It would be a minor inconvenience for a law abiding citizen to take a gun to a dealer so the transaction could be completed, in my honest opinion, especially if it could have any impact on preventing criminals from purchasing guns.

To say they get drugs anyways, it apathetic. We don’t give up the good because of shortcomings. Do we give up on abortions? It’s legal, and they’re going to do it anyways.

Look at the bombs. What good did guns do in that instance?

Even as a gun owner, I would have no problem with the extent of laws like Australia has. We are a people of life, not a people planning for death, even someone else’s.

Why bother with all the gun restrictions, the shipping through a gun dealer, etc … BECAUSE THE VIOLENT CRIMINALS will get whatever guns or bombs they want regardless of the paperwork … because they don’t B-O-T-H-E-R.

Only innocent civilians who want a gun for self-defense would be subject to these meaningless rules … AND be subject to bureaucratic harassment, besides.

So, the best thing would be for each civilian to visit their local police station and pick out whatever gun they want with no delay.

[Or they could visit their local gun shop.]

All that paperwork is pointless.

 

[kuppermom]

When one has a gun shipped, at least in this state, it has to go through a gun dealer. It would be a minor inconvenience for a law abiding citizen to take a gun to a dealer so the transaction could be completed, in my honest opinion, especially if it could have any impact on preventing criminals from purchasing guns.

Sorry it’s taking me so long to respond. I had a couple things I had to deal with. Okay…I for one stand by the need not for more gun laws but better enforcement. Maybe better punishment for those that commit violent crimes with guns. But not more gun laws.

To say they get drugs anyways, it apathetic. We don’t give up the good because of shortcomings. Do we give up on abortions? It’s legal, and they’re going to do it anyways.
Not apathetic, realistic. Do I think laws should change about drugs, no definitely not. Do I think that illegal guns should be allowed to cross the boarder also, of course not. But I’m not going to fall victim in naive thinking that it doesn’t happen, were there is a will there is a way. The problem, I don’t think you’re understanding, though, isn’t the tool, it’s our societal shift. A craving to be noticed in this big world. A world where people are taught in schools that right and wrong are relative. A loss of the value of life, as you stated above with abortions. Would abortions happen even if we made it illegal, it did before so I do think it would again, but I will not stop fighting for it to be illegal. Because I want my kids to grow up know that they live in a country the does not see the killing of babies as okay. But I also want my kids to grow up seeing guns as a tool they can use. To let them have to ability to go hunting with their dad and I. For my husband, to teach them responsibility a proper handling of a firearm at a firing range. For them to be independent, and not naive in the fact that there are bad people out there and if need be, how to be able to defend themselves. Guns are not evil, just because evil people use them sometimes for evil deeds does not make the tool evil.

Look at the bombs. What good did guns do in that instance?

lol. You either deliberately misunderstood me, or intentionally. What I was saying was bad people will find ways to harm, be it bombs, hammers, knives, etc. And I never said guns were a cure all. It is a tool we can use to defend ourselves, that may or may not work in every instance.

Even as a gun owner, I would have no problem with the extent of laws like Australia has. We are a people of life, not a people planning for death, even someone else’s.
I am glad to hear you are a gun owner. I think education is an important part of owning that gun also. I don’t plan a death. If someone enters my home intent on harm, I very much will defend my family to the best of my ability so that they live. But I will not live in a disillusioned world where I don’t think there are bad people out there that may want to harm my kids. I will not live in fear. I will depend on God, the knowledge He has given me, and the tools I have. With free will we will always have those who wish to reject God, but he saw and knew and granted us this free will because He loves us so much.

I’m going to add this site again because I can’t better state my points. Law enforcement usually don’t come before a crime, they just figure out what happened after, then punish the criminals. I don’t want to be a helpless victim. As I stated above, I will not live in fear. I will depend on God, the knowledge He has given me, and the tools I have.
ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

 

[kuppermom]

Bad guys do tend to drink drive, embezzle and get drugs if they want to as well. Yet we still insist not only on having laws against these things on the books, but on constantly tweaking them, usually to make them tougher but always to try to make them more effective.

We don’t simply wash our hands of the problems and give up on trying for better legal solutions. If we do, on gun crime or any other type, we may just find, like Pilate did, that the blood of those victims of the drink drivers, drug dealers and mass shooters does not wash off, as Jesus’ blood did not wash off.

Please read what I wrote to Prodigal Son1. I’d rather not retype it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sorry it’s taking me so long to respond. I had a couple things I had to deal with. Okay…I for one stand by the need not for more gun laws but better enforcement. Maybe better punishment for those that commit violent crimes with guns. But not more gun laws.

So universal background checks are too much, in your opinion?

 

[kuppermom]

So universal background checks are too much, in your opinion?

Yes, Under the universal background check I wouldn’t be able to sell a gun to my brother. And it’s the first step to government registration, which so many government officials have been quoted in saying they would like the end of all gun ownership. Let’s think for a second, why did our forefathers find gun freedoms so important, they even made it second only to freedom of speech. And they were innovators. They knew times would change, if fact they were hoping for it because their thinking was that once we became more evolved we wouldn’t “need so many laws”. What would they think now?
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

• Benjamin Franklin
  I couldn’t say it better.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, Under the universal background check I wouldn’t be able to sell a gun to my brother. And it’s the first step to government registration, which so many government officials have been quoted in saying they would like the end of all gun ownership. Let’s think for a second, why did our forefathers find gun freedoms so important, they even made it second only to freedom of speech. And they were innovators. They knew times would change, if fact they were hoping for it because their thinking was that once we became more evolved we wouldn’t “need so many laws”. What would they think now?
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

• Benjamin Franklin
  I couldn’t say it better.

So, selling a gun to your brother is worth the risk that criminals can obtain weapons through gun shows and private sales?

Ben Franklin was a fine fellow, but he’s not an authoritative man of the Church. Same as those ‘forefathers’ were not early Church fathers. We have a higher calling than those things of this world, in my opinion, and that helps me form my conscience, that I act on. Constitution or Kingdom?

 

[LilyM]

Yes, Under the universal background check I wouldn’t be able to sell a gun to my brother. And it’s the first step to government registration, which so many government officials have been quoted in saying they would like the end of all gun ownership. Let’s think for a second, why did our forefathers find gun freedoms so important, they even made it second only to freedom of speech. And they were innovators. They knew times would change, if fact they were hoping for it because their thinking was that once we became more evolved we wouldn’t “need so many laws”. What would they think now?
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

• Benjamin Franklin
  I couldn’t say it better.

Why would you not be able to sell a gun to your brother? (I’m not asking you to tell us why, just to think about it).

Does he have a criminal or mental health history that would prevent him? If so then he is just as dangerous with a gun as anyone else currently prohibited from owning one and it is quite right that he should not own one.

If you wouldn’t be able to sell for some other reason (eg not being able to prove ownership) that is a flaw in the legislation that probably can and should be worked around, but IMHO no-one should be able to obtain a gun without checks of their criminal and mental health history.

 

[kuppermom]

So, selling a gun to your brother is worth the risk that criminals can obtain weapons through gun shows and private sales?

Ben Franklin was a fine fellow, but he’s not an authoritative man of the Church. Same as those ‘forefathers’ were not early Church fathers. We have a higher calling than those things of this world, in my opinion, and that helps me form my conscience, that I act on. Constitution or Kingdom?

I feel like I’m hitting an intentional brick wall here. Asking me the same questions over and over again and expecting a different answer is getting exhausting and getting us no where.

As to our faith, you need to read 2263-2265 in the Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church “Why is the legitimate defense of persons and of society not opposed to this norm? Because in choosing to legitimately defend oneself one is respecting the right to life(either one’s own right to life or that of another) and not choosing to kill. Indeed, for someone responsible for the life of another, legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty, provided only that disproportionate force is not used.”

 

[kuppermom]

Why would you not be able to sell a gun to your brother? (I’m not asking you to tell us why, just to think about it).

Does he have a criminal or mental health history that would prevent him? If so then he is just as dangerous with a gun as anyone else currently prohibited from owning one and it is quite right that he should not own one.

If you wouldn’t be able to sell for some other reason (eg not being able to prove ownership) that is a flaw in the legislation that probably can and should be worked around, but IMHO no-one should be able to obtain a gun without checks of their criminal and mental health history.

I would be able to sell it to my brother, but I would have to pay several fees to do so. lol, you are trying to bait me now you sneaky dog you.

 

[maryjk]

America was born on the gun, average people standing up and taking arms to the guy in charge cause he was mean and nasty.

Then said people formed a government and basically wrote in ‘if we mess up like the last batch did feel free to take us out’.

 

[kuppermom]

maryjk:
I enjoyed your quotes.

 

[kuppermom]

Why would you not be able to sell a gun to your brother? (I’m not asking you to tell us why, just to think about it).

Does he have a criminal or mental health history that would prevent him? If so then he is just as dangerous with a gun as anyone else currently prohibited from owning one and it is quite right that he should not own one.

If you wouldn’t be able to sell for some other reason (eg not being able to prove ownership) that is a flaw in the legislation that probably can and should be worked around, but IMHO no-one should be able to obtain a gun without checks of their criminal and mental health history.

Could you please what I wrote above because I really really don’t want to retype it? Unless you don’t care what my response is, which is fine, because that is your God given right.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I feel like I’m hitting an intentional brick wall here. Asking me the same questions over and over again and expecting a different answer is getting exhausting and getting us no where.

As to our faith, you need to read 2263-2265 in the Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church “Why is the legitimate defense of persons and of society not opposed to this norm? Because in choosing to legitimately defend oneself one is respecting the right to life(either one’s own right to life or that of another) and not choosing to kill. Indeed, for someone responsible for the life of another, legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty, provided only that disproportionate force is not used.”

You said you wanted a right to sell a gun to your brother. That sounds like placing a personal desire above the good of society. That’s why I was giving you a chance to explain the need to sell to your brother, and how it outweighed stopping as many criminals from obtaining guns as possible.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

I added emphasis, in hopes you might see that it is not for people that assume the legitimate authority upon themselves, for their own interest, it is the legitimate authority responsible for the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Prior to that, it does define appropriate, and inappropriate, defense, but it clearly addresses a legitimate authority’s duties beyond that. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for who? For]for one who is responsible for the lives of others. In the same paragraph it goes further into detail, about the grave duty, for the defense of the common good, not individual. I don’t have to explain the rest of the paragraph. One can see it’s the legitimate authority with the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would be able to sell it to my brother, but I would have to pay several fees to do so. lol, you are trying to bait me now you sneaky dog you.

So having to pay fees to sell a gun to your brother prevents your support for universal background checks that might serve the common good of society?

As Christians, it is my opinion, that we are called to suffer, especially minor inconveniences, for the good of our ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters.’ A few dollars is more than worth it, if it can stop one criminal from obtaining, and using, a gun against someone. Having to go somewhere to complete the necessary paperwork, for background checks, is, again, a minor inconvenience, for the law abiding citizen.

I hope it explains why I don’t believe you have said anything for me to think about changing my view.

 

[kuppermom]

You said you wanted a right to sell a gun to your brother. That sounds like placing a personal desire above the good of society. That’s why I was giving you a chance to explain the need to sell to your brother, and how it outweighed stopping as many criminals from obtaining guns as possible.

I added emphasis, in hopes you might see that it is not for people that assume the legitimate authority upon themselves, for their own interest, it is the legitimate authority responsible for the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Prior to that, it does define appropriate, and inappropriate, defense, but it clearly addresses a legitimate authority’s duties beyond that. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for who? For]for one who is responsible for the lives of others. In the same paragraph it goes further into detail, about the grave duty, for the defense of the common good, not individual. I don’t have to explain the rest of the paragraph. One can see it’s the legitimate authority with the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Did you only read the first five words I wrote? Did you know that in Washington, the state, it is now legal for government officials to come into your home and search it for guns, without a warrant? I call that invasion of privacy myself.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.” 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
You missed the first bit.

 

[kuppermom]

Did you only read the first five words I wrote? Did you know that in Washington, the state, it is now legal for government officials to come into your home and search it for guns, without a warrant? I call that invasion of privacy myself.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.” 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
You missed the first bit.

We do not have a sissy God, “He is not a tame lion”