Is Gun Control the Answer? Politics Didn’t Create the Oregon Shooter

"The powers-that-be in the college administration had clearly bought into the lie that if we all disarm, the bad people will pity us and leave us alone." Politics Didn’t Create the Oregon Shooter

10489 reads

There are 42 Comments

JD Miller's picture

We had a school shooting in our community a day before the Oregon shooting.  I wrote this article for our local newspaper (I submit an article every 2 weeks) showing that sin is a the root of the problem.  Please pray that it will reach hearts.  Here is the link to the article.  http://www.southtownchurch.com/blog.php

David R. Brumbelow's picture

Seems I heard that Mike Huckabee said a gun free zone is a sitting duck zone. I would agree.

Usually what it takes to stop a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun. I’m for good men and women having guns.
I’m glad our local Lee College has security guards that are actually armed with real guns.

My thoughts on gun control:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-control-in-light-of-conn...

David R. Brumbelow

Mark_Smith's picture

Do you want your teacher armed with a .45 on his hip?

You ask a snarky question of him. His hand drifts down to his holster. "You feel lucky today punk? Well, do ya?"

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

These thoughts are certainly not really original with me, but listening to some out there liken guns to cars with respect to regulation, I would be just fine with laws that license guns like cars.

We would be entirely free to own and use a gun on our own property, just like a car.  If we take it out in public, there would be licensing (just like the CCW course I had to take, which included legal instruction (i.e. on the laws) and required shooting of the gun in some different scenarios), because the need for safety and sanity is higher.  We would also be able to go from state to state, just like with a car.  And even a retest every 5 years or so would be fine.

If this is done correctly, I think it would take care of many of those supposed teachers who would pull a Clint Eastwood on the students.  In my opinion, this would be similar to allowing airline pilots to be licensed to carry while flying.  I don't worry that they will go postal on the passengers either.

Dave Barnhart

Jim's picture

http://www.wsj.com/articles/something-we-should-politicize-1443805023

If Obama’s objective is actually to prevent future such crimes, he ought to have waited out of respect not only for the dead, and for those who are not already persuaded, but for the facts. Presumably by “common-sense gun-safety laws” he had in mind proposals such as those the Democrat-controlled Senate declined to pass in 2013: bans on certain types of guns (deemed “assault rifles”), limits on magazine size, and mandatory background checks on persons buying guns privately (i.e., not from licensed firearms dealers, who are already compelled to run checks on their customers).

Would such restrictions have done anything to prevent this crime? There’s no way to know until the facts are in, but often the answer turns out to be no, as CNN reported in 2013. The perpetrator of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which prompted the president’s unsuccessful gun-control campaign the following year, used guns that were “legally purchased and registered to his mother . . . who was his first victim.”

...

gun-rights supporters steadfastly resist even “common-sense” proposals that may seem unobjectionable in themselves. Suppose Congress had responded to Obama’s call in 2013 by enacting all the measures he favored. Suppose further that more high-profile mass shootings had occurred in the interim. Would the president and his political allies respond by acknowledging that gun control had failed, and perhaps refocusing their efforts, say on identification and treatment of mental illness?

Not a chance. They would call for ever more limitations on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Where would it end? Obama made that clear in the most revealing part of his statement yesterday:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours—Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

“Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world,” according to a report from the Library of Congress:

Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason.

Likewise in Australia:

In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.

Australians have surrendered hundreds of thousands of guns to the government in so-called buyback programs. The president has now made clear that he views “common-sense gun-safety laws” as but a first step toward outright bans and confiscation. That’s why it doesn’t matter if the laws would actually have prevented the crimes to which he frames them as a response.

On Hillary:

[Mrs.] Clinton argued that the NRA has “so intimidated elected members of Congress and other legislative bodies that these people are passing the most absurd laws.”

“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.

Observation: Anyone observed this: [a guy] with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

...But if I had, I'd be much less worried about someone willing to carry openly and going about his business, than the thug robbing the store who probably had a pistol under his shirt that no one could see anyway, and that he likely wasn't licensed to carry concealed.

Of course, if someone walks in wearing a ski mask with an AK-47 held at the ready position, that's a much different question.  I think even Hillary should be able to tell the difference between the two -- she would easily know which she would get offended with and from which she would hide.

Dave Barnhart

GregH's picture

I have not personally seen rednecks carrying the AK-47's in supermarkets but I have definitely seen the pictures and it is happening (legally by certain types who want to flaunt their freedom). Personally, I am not comfortable with any moron being able to carry because I don't really trust them to make good decisions with their guns. I would not want everyone bringing their guns to my church either. I would not trust the vast majority of my church to handle a gun properly in an emergency. 

In regards to the studies between the US and the UK, I have spent some time looking and it is sort of hard to determine which country's laws work better. For sure, there is not a huge difference. It is not like one can claim the upper hand definitively.

I see no good reason not to have reasonable gun control. I would not mind if we were like the UK actually. I don't really buy into the argument that citizens need to arm themselves to protect against the government. That might have made sense two centuries ago, but the sophistication of today's military sort of makes that idea silly. There is no way any number of guns can protect citizens from our government if they decide they want something.

Rob Fall's picture

Mrs. Rodham-Clinton doesn't realize the legal restrictions already in place in owning a military issue AK-47.  By military issue, I mean a selective fire weapon.  There are semi-automatic only look alikes, but these firearms are not AK-47s.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Jim's picture

Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings?

Note: Washington Post ... not NRA reporting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-c...

Many mass shootings happen in supposedly “gun-free” zones (such as schools, universities or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isn’t allowed. And there is no central database of such examples, many of which don’t hit the national media, especially if a gunman is stopped before he shoots many victims. Moreover, at least some examples are ambiguous, because it might be unclear — as you’ll see below — whether the shooter had been planning to kill more people when he was stopped.

T Howard's picture

GregH wrote:

I don't really buy into the argument that citizens need to arm themselves to protect against the government. That might have made sense two centuries ago, but the sophistication of today's military sort of makes that idea silly. There is no way any number of guns can protect citizens from our government if they decide they want something.

Yeah, I've thought about that too. When you have a government that has satellite, infrared technology that can see and hear you in your house, and that already tracks all your communications, and is able to fly unmanned drones over your house / hideout 24/7 and launch missiles into your front door, even a compound full of AK-47s isn't going to do much. If a dictator ever took over the U.S. government, there would be some guerilla warfare for sure, but I doubt the effectiveness of most middle-aged gunslingers.

 

Wayne Wilson's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

Do you want your teacher armed with a .45 on his hip?

You ask a snarky question of him. His hand drifts down to his holster. "You feel lucky today punk? Well, do ya?"

 

In Israel, elementary teachers carry assault rifles. Seems to work.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

T Howard wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

I don't really buy into the argument that citizens need to arm themselves to protect against the government. That might have made sense two centuries ago, but the sophistication of today's military sort of makes that idea silly. There is no way any number of guns can protect citizens from our government if they decide they want something.

 

 

Yeah, I've thought about that too. When you have a government that has satellite, infrared technology that can see and hear you in your house, and that already tracks all your communications, and is able to fly unmanned drones over your house / hideout 24/7 and launch missiles into your front door, even a compound full of AK-47s isn't going to do much. If a dictator ever took over the U.S. government, there would be some guerilla warfare for sure, but I doubt the effectiveness of most middle-aged gunslingers.

 

Of course, it would really depend on the size of the uprising, how badly the government wanted to quell it, and what collateral damage they are willing to accept.  You are right that our government has missiles, spy satellites and drones, but at the moment, our government is pretty powerless against Al Qaeda, ISIS, or really, about any other terrorist group because they are not willing to do what it takes (cf. the accidental shelling of the MsF hospital) to completely take them out, not because they don't have the capability.  With a large enough uprising (like the same percentage as those who went to war against Britain 200 years ago), done in guerilla style, rather than outright fighting like during the Civil War, I suspect it wouldn't be as easy for the government to get rid of it as you think.

I don't disagree that a few hundred "militia" members wouldn't have much chance.  Still, an idea is a powerful thing.

Dave Barnhart

ejohansen's picture

T Howard wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

I don't really buy into the argument that citizens need to arm themselves to protect against the government. That might have made sense two centuries ago, but the sophistication of today's military sort of makes that idea silly. There is no way any number of guns can protect citizens from our government if they decide they want something.

 

 

Yeah, I've thought about that too. When you have a government that has satellite, infrared technology that can see and hear you in your house, and that already tracks all your communications, and is able to fly unmanned drones over your house / hideout 24/7 and launch missiles into your front door, even a compound full of AK-47s isn't going to do much. If a dictator ever took over the U.S. government, there would be some guerilla warfare for sure, but I doubt the effectiveness of most middle-aged gunslingers.

 

 

Ask yourself why we are still fighting in Afghanistan.  Ask yourself why Russia failed against Afghanistan.  Dissidents with 300,000,000 guns in the USA could put up a pretty good struggle too, if need be.

ejohansen's picture

GregH wrote:

In regards to the studies between the US and the UK, I have spent some time looking and it is sort of hard to determine which country's laws work better. For sure, there is not a huge difference. It is not like one can claim the upper hand definitively.

I see no good reason not to have reasonable gun control. I would not mind if we were like the UK actually.

 

UK and USA gun crimes are an unfair comparison for obvious reasons.  Compare instead violent crimes in each of these countries.

GregH's picture

ejohansen wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

In regards to the studies between the US and the UK, I have spent some time looking and it is sort of hard to determine which country's laws work better. For sure, there is not a huge difference. It is not like one can claim the upper hand definitively.

I see no good reason not to have reasonable gun control. I would not mind if we were like the UK actually.

 

 

UK and USA gun crimes are an unfair comparison for obvious reasons.  Compare instead violent crimes in each of these countries.

Yes but even that is hard because the two countries have different definitions of violent crime. And those statistics do not necessarily reflect crimes committed but rather crimes report. However, it does appear that the US has a higher homicide rate per capita and a higher rape rate per capita while the UK is worse in crimes such as burglary.

wkessel1's picture

One thing the US has that the other countries don't have is the second amendment.  Which wasn't about having guns for hunting, but to resist the government if it became tyrannical.  Removal of guns from the citizens is the what the other countries have essentially done and is essentially what the 2nd amendment is a protection against.  However, it is the only thing that will stop the shootings, not necessarily the killing.  Department of Justice study shows none of the current gun control ideas will ultimately work.   Background checks, waiting periods, smaller magazines, banning "assault" weapons won't actually stop a person who wants get the job done.  There are too many guns already in play.

For the record I am not personally in favor of rebellion from the government based on Romans 13; but to do what wants to be done would probably require removal of the second amendment.  Just my thoughts.

Don Johnson's picture

It isn't absolutely clear, but from this article, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-ke...

it appears that the mother of the killer and her son were avid members of the gun culture in America. 

I don't know what the solution is, I think it is incredibly hard to put the genie back in the bottle (too many guns in circulation already), but it seems to me the pro-gun mentality of almost unfettered access for everyone is no solution. 

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

ejohansen's picture

wkessel1 wrote:

For the record I am not personally in favor of rebellion from the government based on Romans 13; but to do what wants to be done would probably require removal of the second amendment.  Just my thoughts.

 

Does not our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution give us specific directive to indeed rebel, armed if necessary, should our government become (more) tyrannical.  I doubt the Roman empire had that option in their founding documents. 

Jim's picture

Elephants: We should round up 13,000,000 illegals and ship them back!

Donkeys: Impossible and immoral!

Donkeys: We need to purge America of 350,000,000 firearms (mostly legal

Me: Ya sure!

How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps

  1. Step 1: Elect. For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side.
  2. Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans.
  3. Step 3: Ratify. Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change. At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.
  4. Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform. .... It will have to be passed by Congress and signed by the president. Great! The law is passed and guns are now illegal. The only thing left to do is...
  5. Step 5: Enforce. Guns won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans.
T Howard's picture

ejohansen wrote:

Ask yourself why we are still fighting in Afghanistan.  Ask yourself why Russia failed against Afghanistan.  Dissidents with 300,000,000 guns in the USA could put up a pretty good struggle too, if need be.

There is a marked difference between Afghanistan / Iraq and the U.S. Neither country has the robust government intel, surveillance, and infrastructure that currently exists in the U.S. Every major city, highway, communication hub, and transportation hub is surveilled 24/7. The climate and terrain of both countries is rather hostile and remote compared to the U.S. And, it's easy to smuggle serious firepower and trained foreign fighters into/out of these countries due to close proximity to other unfriendly Middle Eastern countries (i.e. Pakistan and Iran). Sure, dissidents could hide out in the woods or mountains for a period of time (probably longer in the Western states), but I doubt they could successfully hold/retake major cities or transportation hubs, especially if the local/state police and national guard side with the government.

In short, your S&W 9MM, Mossberg shotgun, or AR-15 is going to do you little good against a take over by big brother.

T Howard's picture

Jim wrote:

I personally would never rebel against the government:

  • Were the law such (settled law) that all guns had to be surrendered ... I would comply

My personal case for gun ownership is personal protection from armed intruders

As would I. I appreciate my right to keep and bear arms, and I do. But, if it is legitimately repealed, I would comply with the law of the land.

wkessel1's picture

Just because those documents may give discretion to rebel, doesn't mean we have to follow them.  Romans 13 instructs us to submit to the government because their authority comes from God.  Unless what the government want me to do is in direct conflict with God's commands, I should submit.  Even if it the government goes against the Constitution or other founding documents.  That is how I apply Romans 13, you may certainly differ.

ejohansen's picture

From your interpretation then, did the founding fathers of the USA sin in their revolution against the king of England?  No new countries could be formed, no democracies created (I know, we are a democratically elected republic), no people freed from tyranny.  God removes leaders, does he use revolution to do it?

Jim's picture

ejohansen wrote:

From your interpretation then, did the founding fathers of the USA sin in their revolution against the king of England?  No new countries could be formed, no democracies created (I know, we are a democratically elected republic), no people freed from tyranny.  God removes leaders, does he use revolution to do it?

But I would have been a Loyalist 

What would have driven me:

  • They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.
  • They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
  • They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
  • They were cautious and afraid that chaos and mob rule would result.
  • They felt a need for order and believed that Parliament was the legitimate authority
wkessel1's picture

God does in fact remove leaders and puts new ones in place whenever He wants.  He can use whatever means He desires, including rebellion.  He has used the sins of people to accomplish his purposes - thinking of Joseph brothers off the top my head.  Since most (not all) of the founder father's were Deist and probably not actually Christians, their first consideration wasn't what would God think about this.  That being said I can't say it was sin for them, that is ultimately between them and God; I can only speak for myself.  For me to not submit the government, they would need to go against Scripture and not my opinions or even my rights.

Shaynus's picture

I began legally carrying a pistol wherever I legally can recently. One part of that was I no longer live and work in the Washington DC area (I now live in gun friendly Tennessee) that has much more restrictive policy than the rest of the US generally. The other catalyst was the Charleston shooting. It shocked me into consistent proactive action to be able to protect those around me, and myself. 

Above someone mentioned that they wouldn't mind open carry and were more concerned with concealed carry. This I both do and don't understand. Open carry is inherently more dangerous for the carrier. He loses the advantage of surprise and becomes a target for opportunistic attacks from those wanting a free gun and are able to get a drop on the carrier. I see regular reports of this in the news. I support the concept of open carry being legal, but it's a bad tactical move in most everyday cases. The fact is those concealed carrying who are a real danger will do so whether the law allows them to or not, and you will never know until a shooting occurs. I tend towards allowing all non-felons to conceal weapons or openly carry them. In America it makes a lot more sense in a nation of maybe 350 million guns in a huge territory with little structure to stop them. 

Remember also that while driving is a privilege, keeping and bearing arms in common use is a constitutional right. The idea that one should be permitted to do so much like a driver of a car is missing this basic privilege vs. right difference. 

 

Shaynus's picture

Remember that the American Revolution was a conservative one. Always keep in mind the hundreds of years that lead up to it. 

  • - The colonies thought of themselves and were chartered as crown colonies outside of the reach of parliament. 
  • - Revolution occurred in England and the colonies were left to themselves for decades if not a century with their own state assemblies acting as parliaments might in England under common law. 
  • - When a weak monarchy presented itself and Parliament was ascendant, they started to legislate in ways that were averse to the longstanding common law powers of parliament. 
  • - Colonists appealed to the king as their protector against parliament but he refused his duty. 
  • - Colonists were standing up against a usurping parliament, and in the Declaration of Independence charged the king himself with not fulfilling his feudal obligations of his crown charter. 

The American Revolution was perhaps the only conservative revolution in history. Treating it as a standard rebellion against government, contra Romans 13 is naive at best. 

Joeb's picture

My last hand gun was a Sig Sauer 357 for my job.  Fine weapon .  I carried a concealed weapon for my job for 25 years.  I only had to skin my hog twice in my career for arrests.  Since Ive retired I have not carried a hand gun in 10 years even though I can secure federal credentials that allow me to carry a concealed weapon in any state in the US regardless of the state laws.  The only guns I have now are a few shotguns that I use to hunt,  So y0u can see Im not a real gun person.  Some people are hunters and gun people.  Some people are just gun people but don't hunt.  These people like to target shoot,  shoot trap or like to shoot assault guns.  I understand both sides of the issue. Although I am more open to some gun control, I understand the NRA members outlook.  If you give an inch the liberal side will take a mile,  This is why the NRA and their members don't want to give an inch. If you take NY City which has stricter gun control and compare it to Philadelphia, which has no gun control.  You can see the argument for gun control.  NY which is five times the size of Philadelphia has same number of people murdered per year as Philadelphia.  As far as these isolated mass shooting incidents some of these could have been avoided with better parenting.  I understand that in the Oregan incident tne young man had a history of mental illness issues and the mother did not get the guns away from him.  In the CONN situation it was the same thing the mother did nothing to control her sons access to firearms even though her son had clear mental issues.  Now not all mass shootings are this way, but ones that are require more of the parents to step up to the plate.  You cant always blames the guns no one in both of these situations has mentioned the irresponsible parents.  Anyway Im more afraid of PETA than anything elses.  That is the only reason i would be afraid of gun control, because PETA would use it against hunters.

Pages