Evidence for God from Science

Paul: With the RIGHT kind of control you don't eliminate gun crime but you can reduce it.
No gun control exists that eliminates gun crime.
I am sure if this guy didn't have his guns, he would have found another way.

All true!

Here's the problem, in America - there are TWO very powerful entities, both with extreme views, that are collectively keeping us far less safe:

A) The extreme "ban the gun" crowd - and while mostly on the Democrat side, there are people across the spectrum that desire this - they cling to a purely emotional view of the issue, but not one of logic. Fact is, ALL kinds of high-tech guns and conversion kits to make them virtually automatic can be found throughout the country, and in the vast millions. This means, if you banned ALL guns tomorrow, they would remain cheap and easy to obtain through illegal sales, and for centuries. And the criminals, those intent on robbery, murder and mayhem, will only laugh at the gun ban. Heck, guns show up in prisons, for crying out loud. So, the "gun genie" has been out in America for over two centuries. It's true that some cities with very strict gun controls also have high gun crime rates - with one major reason, stolen and black-market guns are everywhere. Most people who don't live here don't understand this situation. HOWEVER, that said, it still doesn't negate that there ARE some common sense controls that would make us MORE safe.

B) The other powerful, organized entity of lobbyists and political power is the NRA. While I understand its argument (SOME of which is valid) - but only on one level - as it likewise takes the position of the other extreme - I'm not sure that, short of tanks, bazookas and rocket launchers, they see any reason to ban ANY weapons (yes, I know that's somewhat of an exaggeration). And the NRA's argument is an extreme reaction to the "ban all the guns" crowd: "If you ban this gun or that, it becomes the slippery slope, and then the left and Democrats would seek to ban ALL guns - so ANY gun control will undoubtedly lead to that attempt, and eventual reality. And then only criminals will be carrying guns (that part is true!)" So you have two groups unwilling to take a sensible center on the issue, with BOTH sides presenting extreme and emotional arguments. Yes, fear of those wanting to ban all guns is a concern - but could be addressed with affirmations of rights attached to any new legislation.

The real question SHOULD be: What sensible approach to gun laws will make us safer? Citizens should be able to arm themselves to the level of the typical threat they might encounter per criminals or home invasion. Virtually EVERY house in my rural area, and in the city has some kind of weapon. That is why home invasions are extremely rare, because criminals know invading someone's home is a likely suicide mission. Also, legally owned gun crimes are pretty rare. Yes, you have unstable family members or acquaintances, having a gun around is not smart.

What level of weaponry should citizens have? Most of the bad dudes are armed with .357s, 38s (grandpa's), .44 magnums, 9 mm, etc. This and hunting shotguns and rifles are about the level at which most people need a weapon for. Fast repeating, long-range or militia-style rifles - these should be illegal. Reign in private sales and gun shows, conversion kits, internet sales. We license people to drive - a vehicle in untrained hands IS a weapon - so background checks and permits make sense. But notice, NONE of these will stop a determined criminal or one planning some gun crime. It helps with the impulsive nut jobs - but those so determined, they'll find another way. But short of a bomb, hopefully someone impulsive to kill can't QUICKLY get their hands on a weapon capable of taking down dozens of people in a fast spray of a crowd. But that is about as good as we are going to do - there is no law that can prevent every gun crime. At best, we can try to not make it too easy for nut jobs and criminals (especially those with a record) from legal purchases. Won't stop any private, illegal sales!

Last, in pruning down the list of which weapons can be legally sold, our lawmakers should affirm the right for people to own the remaining weapons deemed legal - AFFIRM that in ANY new gun legislation - so as to take the NRA and the extreme "ban all" crowds' arguments away. You'd also have to address what should be done about weapons declared illegal that are already out there.

IF I lived in a country where guns had not yet saturated the entire society, where so many guns of all types weren't already in a gazillion private hands, then (and ONLY then) I could live with a far more restrictive approach - because it would likely make people safer. But as for America, our situation is far different.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ok, allow me to be more specific:
The view is that if you reduce the availability of automatic weapons then deaths, mass deaths as the case in Vegas, by firearms, will be reduced.

But that's exactly the myth gun control advocates want everyone to believe, except it is only a myth. You really think for one second if Paddock didn't have access to the large cache of weapons he had, that he wouldn't have found another way of committing mass murder, perhaps at a much larger scale? When the intent is there, a way is always found. That's the bottom line.

See, I am not sure if that is the case and the reason I say that is because in countries where automatic weapons are not available legally, shootings with automatic weapons are far less than those countries where automatic weapons are available.
It isn't that there aren't ANY shootings with automatics, its that there number is far less.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ok, allow me to be more specific:
The view is that if you reduce the availability of automatic weapons then deaths, mass deaths as the case in Vegas, by firearms, will be reduced.

But that's exactly the myth gun control advocates want everyone to believe, except it is only a myth. You really think for one second if Paddock didn't have access to the large cache of weapons he had, that he wouldn't have found another way of committing mass murder, perhaps at a much larger scale? When the intent is there, a way is always found. That's the bottom line.

See, I am not sure if that is the case and the reason I say that is because in countries where automatic weapons are not available legally, shootings with automatic weapons are far less than those countries where automatic weapons are available.
It isn't that there aren't ANY shootings with automatics, its that there number is far less.

On that we agree, it is a simple matter of statistics. How does that prevent a mad man from using a truck as a battering ram on a crowded sidewalk?

Intent.

One issue at a time Bylbos...

The harsh reality is that you can NOT stop a person intent on killing.
We can, however, reduce the means by which he can kill a large number of people ( which is no consolation for those that he does kill) and I think that it was the REASONABLE people are interested in.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ok, allow me to be more specific:
The view is that if you reduce the availability of automatic weapons then deaths, mass deaths as the case in Vegas, by firearms, will be reduced.

But that's exactly the myth gun control advocates want everyone to believe, except it is only a myth. You really think for one second if Paddock didn't have access to the large cache of weapons he had, that he wouldn't have found another way of committing mass murder, perhaps at a much larger scale? When the intent is there, a way is always found. That's the bottom line.

How do you know it's a myth? We've never tried to implement comprehensive gun control, so there's no data pointing one way or the other. Your argument is empty speculation dressed up as certainty.

And furthermore, how do you know that when there's intent there's always a way? Perhaps if Paddock had had to break a law or two in order to assemble his arsenal he might have been caught. Perhaps if guns weren't an option and he'd had to resort to a bomb he'd have been caught. Or blown himself up. Or made a faulty weapon. There's no way to know any of that.

Regarding the OK City bombing and 9/11, i think you're undercutting your own point. After the former the FBI got more aggressive investigating homegrown terrorism and security was beefed up at Federal buildings. After the latter the DHS was created and airport and aircraft security was improved. We still have Federal buildings, but no more have been bombed. We still have planes and buildings, but nobody has used the first to knock down the second since 9/11. In other words, rather that just shrugging and saying "where there's a will there's a way" we took steps to make such attacks much more difficult to pull off.

PaulSacramento wrote:One issue at a time Bylbos...

The harsh reality is that you can NOT stop a person intent on killing.
We can, however, reduce the means by which he can kill a large number of people ( which is no consolation for those that he does kill) and I think that it was the REASONABLE people are interested in.

It is the same issue and the same subject Paul, that's my point. We pass laws that eliminate entirely all types of weapons, not just automatic machine guns. Have we solved the problem? I am contending no, we haven't solved anything because the person intending on harming others will resort to airplanes, trucks, pressure cookers filled with nails and ball bearings, fertilizers, home-made chemical or biological weapons, and the list goes on and on. What are we to do, pass laws that will ban all of these? Gun control is a smoke screen for a much larger, more systemic problem in this country. I don't even pretend to know what it is, much less how to solve it. What I'm fairly certain about, however, is that gun control ain't it.

Byblos: We pass laws that eliminate entirely all types of weapons, not just automatic machine guns. Have we solved the problem? I am contending no, we haven't solved anything because the person intending on harming others will resort to airplanes, trucks, pressure cookers filled with nails and ball bearings, fertilizers, home-made chemical or biological weapons, and the list goes on and on.

No, but we can make it a bit less easy for them - especially the impulsive types, people who snap, to legally buy certain levels of weapons. But for those determined and planning mayhem - no, ultimately you cannot stop them. But the question should be: Why have certain types of weapons and conversion kits, unfettered gun show sales, sales to individuals without a background check? Those are all common sense things we could do to LESSEN the danger. It is a false dichotomy that our choices are only between banning every weapon and in allowing today's current, virtual freedom of choice and easy pipelines to some of the immensely dangerous artillery that is currently available or sold. There is simply is NO reasonable justification for some of the legal weaponry out there. Seriously - and I am very pro-arming oneself adequate - what level of firepower is necessary for the average citizen? What makes us safER, what keeps us less safe? People on both extreme positions are unreasonable. Now, if I lived in Iraq or some very dangerous places, I'd want it legal to buy and AK47 or better. But we aren't there...yet. And guess what - in places like that, bombs are used because, in many places like Iraq, there is relative parity of weaponry that many people own, making bombs more effective.

I generally agree with you Phil, with one exception. The implication that there's any kind of parity between the "extreme 'ban the gun' crowd" and the NRA is laughably ridiculous.

The former are a fringe group with virtually no support or influence. They're the PETA of gun control. Sure, they have some high profile backers, but nobody really takes them seriously and they have no chance of advancing their agenda.

The latter, by comparison, is an 800 pound gorilla that does whatever it wants, gets whatever it wants, and stomps the holy hell out of anyone who says otherwise.

They are NOT the same.

Ed: They are NOT the same.

Ed, I'm not saying they are equal. But I can guarantee you they (the ban the gunners) are exceptionally useful to those buying into the fear the NRA have very successfully used to instill fear of "losing your guns and the right to defend yourself," etc. Because impressions become reality for those having them. And it doesn't help when we hear "we need more gun laws and to ban this or that" without specifics and nuances. As those politicians typically shouting this are also playing up to emotions - as they also fully know that this will never happen. It certainly wins votes, but the reality of some level of gun ownership will forever remain legal. As well, for those playing an extreme anti-gun rhetoric, the NRA is a very useful political tool/boogieman (and some of the NRA's extreme positions make that so easy for them). And, unquestionably, the NRA's extreme positions and fear-mongering have played right into that. LONG ago, when I was a kid, the NRA was more of a sportsmen and hunting organization. My impression is that they began to become far more radicalized around the time Charlton Heston was leading it.

Ok, good point, Phil. I agree that the loudest on the left make a good foil for the NRA, and I've met plenty of people who seriously believed nonsense like "Obama's coming for our guns!" I even remember listening to a couple of old farmers talking about how Obama was going to run for a third term and opining that somebody needed to shoot him before it happened. It was all I could do not to scream "No, no, no! Twenty-second Amendment! Read the [love] Constitution!" So anyway, yeah, I hear what you're saying.

And I'd also like to say that I'm pleased that we're all able to have a reasonable conversation about this. Maybe that's a good sign.

Regarding the radicalization of the NRA, I think that was Wayne LaPierre's doing. Credit where credit is due - he's done a fantastic job supporting the gun industry.

I'm sorry to burst the bubble when it seems like an actual conversation is going on but I am against banning any firearms and as a matter of fact I believe a person should have the freedom to own as much gun power as they want and can afford.Call me a right wing wacko I don't care I believe in the right to bear arms to defend our liberty and freedom in America and it could take alot of fire power to defend it if governments get their way which always try to take our freedoms away.Freedom must be protected and defended according to history or it is lost.There is noway I'm going to trust the government or politicians to not take our freedom away.You are in denial of history if you trust them so much and I don't want them to even have the chance to even try to.The government should fear the what the American people will do to them if they try to take our freedom and liberty away and not the other way around.

ACB - do you think we should be able to own bazookas or rocket launchers? How about small artillery you can mount on the back of a truck? What about grenades? Fully automatic machineguns - without any restrictions (see below)? Shoulder-fired rocket launchers? Because these are rare for people to own (legal or not), and you aren't going to seriously defend against professional soldiers without such weaponry. You can't legally own much of that stuff now - and for good reason. If we had a radical government elected that ordered the seizure of guns, that is such a redflag and danger that no thinking persons would ever turn them over - it's not gonna happen. Most guns are not registered - who's going to know you have one? So, what level of firepower should be legal - include those things I've listed? Why or why not?

Actually, you CAN legally own a machinegun, but they are highly regulated - criminals would never buy them legally:


-Pay a tax of $200
- Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
-Submit photographs
-Submit passport photos
- Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application
-Wait for the results of your background check to come back


Last, IF the government was ever so foolish to ban all guns, do you really think most people - specifically those who are passionate about being able to have the right to defend themselves - would actually turn them in? Course not - because they would know the threat out there, per criminal types who would merely hide their guns.

ACB: "The government should fear the what the American people will do to them if they try to take our freedom and liberty away,"

And so you just made my point - as long as we elect leaders, this simply will not happen. Plus, you already are refused unlimited firepower - at least for the most part.

Philip wrote:ACB - do you think we should be able to own bazookas or rocket launchers? How about small artillery you can mount on the back of a truck? What about grenades? Fully automatic machineguns - without any restrictions (see below)? Shoulder-fired rocket launchers? Because these are rare for people to own (legal or not), and you aren't going to seriously defend against professional soldiers without such weaponry. You can't legally own much of that stuff now - and for good reason. If we had a radical government elected that ordered the seizure of guns, that is such a redflag and danger that no thinking persons would ever turn them over - it's not gonna happen. Most guns are not registered - who's going to know you have one? So, what level of firepower should be legal - include those things I've listed? Why or why not?

Actually, you CAN legally own a machinegun, but they are highly regulated - criminals would never buy them legally:


-Pay a tax of $200
- Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
-Submit photographs
-Submit passport photos
- Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application
-Wait for the results of your background check to come back


Last, IF the government was ever so foolish to ban all guns, do you really think most people - specifically those who are passionate about being able to have the right to defend themselves - would actually turn them in? Course not - because they would know the threat out there, per criminal types who would merely hide their guns.

ACB: "The government should fear the what the American people will do to them if they try to take our freedom and liberty away,"

And so you just made my point - as long as we elect leaders, this simply will not happen. Plus, you already are refused unlimited firepower - at least for the most part.

I'm really just for an armed citenzry to defend freedom and liberty from a tyrranical government.Is our military our armed militia?Because our government should fear "We the people" if they ever tried to take our freedom away.

I'm really just for an armed citenzry to defend freedom and liberty from a tyrranical government.Is our military our armed militia?Because our government should fear "We the people" if they ever tried to take our freedom away.

ACB - you have expressed a desire to have a legal level of armed citizens that already does not exist - certainly not to stand up to an army of trained soldiers. So, give that, what is the purpose of having some of the extreme arms that are currently legally available - you and I and everyone is less safe with certain weapons proliferating. Let's not make it any easier for the impulsive nut jobs to get fully automatic weapons with just a kit or whatever, or from gunshow or private sales. I myself don't want some of these type weapons - and yet I desire to be REASONABLY armed. Do you really think guns like long-range sniper rifles should be legal to own? WHY???

Abe wrote:I'm really just for an armed citenzry to defend freedom and liberty from a tyrranical government.

Whose freedom and liberty? How do we decide when the government is getting to be tyrannical? What separates the Timothy McVeighs from the legitimate patriots?

And in more practical terms, when the government controls the FBI, CIA, and the military, and the high ground is low orbit how the hell would an armed citizenry do anything other than get slaughtered? Do you really think grandpa's bazooka is going to dent an M1A1, or that a guy with an AR-15 would have a prayer against a drone strikes launched from farther away than he can see? It's not 1795 anymore, Abe.

Philip wrote: Do you really think guns like long-range sniper rifles should be legal to own? WHY???

I don't know, Phil. You're basically talking about high-caliber, scoped rifles, which puts you squarely in opposition to anybody looking to hunt for deer or anything larger. That's a non-starter.

Personally, while I agree that a crazy guy with a sniper rifle is an extreme danger to his fellow citizens, the fact remains that that kind of weapon does have a use other than killing people.

Personally, I think the best issues to address are capacity, rate of fire, concealment, licensing, training, and background checks. Address all of those, along with education and mental health (primarily dealing with suicide prevention) and we'll have a safer country. Not perfectly safe, but safer.