Here's a Way to Control Guns

Started by Dave Benke, July 18, 2015, 09:40:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave Benke

Here's a link to an editorial in today's New York Times co-authored by myself, Revs. Brawley and Moss, and Rabbi Mosbacher for your reading and discernment.  We've dealt with this topic before on our forum. Metro IAF (Industrial Areas Foundation) is an umbrella under which local community organizations are held, including the one to which I and mine at St. Peter's have belonged for over thirty years, East Brooklyn Congregations.  EBC was the local sponsor of the Nehemiah Plan, which has produced and is still producing over 4000 single family homes in Brooklyn, with many thousands more across the country based on the Nehemiah model and funding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/opinion/heres-a-way-to-control-guns.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Dave Benke
It's OK to Pray

Charles Austin

WTG! Bishop/DP Benke et al. Spotted the piece this morning and proud to see your name attached.
NYT Op-Ed is a major forum and gets widely read.
ELCA PASTOR. Iowa born and raised. And look at this. Here's the old 1960s protestor and critic of our government as virtually the only "love this country" patriot in this forum.

John_Hannah

Way to go, Bishop!!!

Good ideas, indeed.  As they say, "Money talks." In fact, it speaks loudly.

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

Fletch

Quote from: Dave Benke on July 18, 2015, 09:40:21 AM
Here's a link to an editorial in today's New York Times co-authored by myself, Revs. Brawley and Moss, and Rabbi Mosbacher for your reading and discernment.  We've dealt with this topic before on our forum. Metro IAF (Industrial Areas Foundation) is an umbrella under which local community organizations are held, including the one to which I and mine at St. Peter's have belonged for over thirty years, East Brooklyn Congregations.  EBC was the local sponsor of the Nehemiah Plan, which has produced and is still producing over 4000 single family homes in Brooklyn, with many thousands more across the country based on the Nehemiah model and funding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/opinion/heres-a-way-to-control-guns.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Dave Benke

In my humble opinion, the term "gun control" is putting the focus on an inanimate tool rather than the real issue - improper use of the tool.  For some reason, I guess the term "gun control" has grown to mean something entirely different than the ability of a shooter to place his bullets accurately.  Murder rates will likely not decrease substantially until our society focuses on the root cause instead of symptoms - the value for human life and human safety intead of political theatrics or bending to unethical societal demands (e.g. abortion).  There are far more deadly inanimate objects in our country than guns (cars, trucks, chemical plants, swimming pools, forks, knives, baseball bats, airplanes, trains, pens, pencils, ovens, stoves, space heaters, cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, liquor, and the list goes on).  Responsible use for all of those items is the key in my opinion - it is, in my opinion, shortsighted and a bit silly to focus our energy on the inanimate gun.  Guns do make for great movies, TV shows, headlines, and editorials - sensationalism continues to sell quite well.

... Fletch

Donald_Kirchner

"Let's give gun manufacturers an incentive..."

I suppose if "give an incentive" and coercion are seen as synonymous...

And of course we could justify such governmental coercion by calling it a tax.   ;)
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

David Garner

Bishop, respectfully (and starting with my disagreement), "smart gun" technology is currently dangerous, and IMHO not conducive to defensive use of a pistol.  I'd wager you that the same law enforcement officers you call on to pressure gun manufacturers do not want their officers carrying "smart guns."  I could give you a whole bunch of reasons why, but the simplest example would be the officer who is shot with a magazine full of ammo, incapacitated but not fatally wounded, and his partner has a significant malfunction with his own gun.  The smartest thing to do is to use his partner's gun, but now he can't.

Having said that, regarding distribution practices I wholeheartedly agree.  I fear (and I think rightfully so) that the present administration will try to overreach and a more conservative administration will pay only lip service, if that.  But if we had a President who decided to actually engage gun manufacturers and suggest to them that we respect the right to keep and bear arms, we acknowledge that profit is fine and good, but flooding the market with guns while knowing many of those are getting to market through straw purchases, etc. is immoral and dangerous, there could be some actual change.  I am a huge supporter of gun rights, but the NRA is little more than a lobbying arm for gun manufacturers.  If you notice, they tend to oppose measures that would make gun sales more difficult.  I don't think that's a coincidence.  I don't blame the manufacturers -- the most popular guns will of course be the ones criminals get, just as the most popular drugs are the ones that will be sold in schools around the country (I'm looking at you, oxycodone).  But they can have a role to play in stemming the tide, which I think would be imminently helpful.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

David Garner

#6
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
"Let's give gun manufacturers an incentive..."

I suppose if "give an incentive" and coercion are seen as synonymous...

And of course we could justify such governmental coercion by calling it a tax.   ;)

I'm not sure it's really coercion.  We aren't talking about passing laws to require conformity, but simply saying "we're a pretty big customer -- please take our concerns into account because you can rest assured we will be taking your actions into account when we make purchasing decisions."
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Donald_Kirchner

"Murder rates will likely not decrease substantially until..."

I've been reading that e.g., where conceal-carry laws are in place, i.e., where more citizens legally possess guns, murder rates have substantially decreased.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Dave Benke

Quote from: David Garner on July 18, 2015, 10:04:38 AM
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
"Let's give gun manufacturers an incentive..."

I suppose if "give an incentive" and coercion are seen as synonymous...

And of course we could justify such governmental coercion by calling it a tax.   ;)

I'm not sure it's really coercion.  We aren't talking about passing laws to require conformity, but simply saying "we're a pretty big customer -- please take our concerns into account because you can rest assumed we will be taking your actions into account when we make purchasing decisions."

That's the idea.

Dave Benke
It's OK to Pray

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: David Garner on July 18, 2015, 10:04:38 AM
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
"Let's give gun manufacturers an incentive..."

I suppose if "give an incentive" and coercion are seen as synonymous...

And of course we could justify such governmental coercion by calling it a tax.   ;)

I'm not sure it's really coercion.  We aren't talking about passing laws to require conformity, but simply saying "we're a pretty big customer -- please take our concerns into account because you can rest assumed we will be taking your actions into account when we make purchasing decisions."

Coercion: "to compel to an act or choice"
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Steven W Bohler

Yeah, and since most automobile deaths happen in products from Ford, GM, Toyota, and a few other companies, the government should not purchase any more vehicles from them until they can guarantee that none of "their" cars can ever commit such mayhem ever again.  That should fix the problem, right? 

And I believe Sweetheart makes most of the drinking straws used in the US.  We have an epidemic of obesity in our country, largely because of soft drinks and fast-food beverages (like shakes and malts and frappes and such) -- most of which are consumed with straws!  How long can we let Sweetheart continue to kill our citizens?  Think of the children!  Let's make straw manufacturer's put some sort of gadget on their products to ensure that fat people (like me) cannot use them.  After all, it's not MY fault.  It's got to be THEIRS.

::) 

David Garner

Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2015, 10:10:22 AM
Quote from: David Garner on July 18, 2015, 10:04:38 AM
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
"Let's give gun manufacturers an incentive..."

I suppose if "give an incentive" and coercion are seen as synonymous...

And of course we could justify such governmental coercion by calling it a tax.   ;)

I'm not sure it's really coercion.  We aren't talking about passing laws to require conformity, but simply saying "we're a pretty big customer -- please take our concerns into account because you can rest assumed we will be taking your actions into account when we make purchasing decisions."

Coercion: "to compel to an act or choice"

They aren't compelled.  They can simply decide they do not want the United States government as a customer.  They are still making a perfectly free choice.  So is the government.

I don't shop at some places because they have "no guns allowed" signs outside.  They made their choice, I made mine.  This is the same situation, only the government has more purchasing power than I do.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Steven W Bohler

Quote from: David Garner on July 18, 2015, 10:04:38 AM
Quote from: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
"Let's give gun manufacturers an incentive..."

I suppose if "give an incentive" and coercion are seen as synonymous...

And of course we could justify such governmental coercion by calling it a tax.   ;)

I'm not sure it's really coercion.  We aren't talking about passing laws to require conformity, but simply saying "we're a pretty big customer -- please take our concerns into account because you can rest assured we will be taking your actions into account when we make purchasing decisions."

So if the Feds place a phone call to Sturm, Ruger, and Company and "suggest" these things, you don't think that will come across as coercion?  As nothing but a friendly suggestion from a buyer?  Right.  Sort of like when the local mafiosa comes into your business and says: "Nice place you got here.  Be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.  Here's a suggestion...."

SomeoneWrites

Quote from: David Garner on July 18, 2015, 10:03:12 AM
Bishop, respectfully (and starting with my disagreement), "smart gun" technology is currently dangerous, and IMHO not conducive to defensive use of a pistol.  I'd wager you that the same law enforcement officers you call on to pressure gun manufacturers do not want their officers carrying "smart guns."  I could give you a whole bunch of reasons why, but the simplest example would be the officer who is shot with a magazine full of ammo, incapacitated but not fatally wounded, and his partner has a significant malfunction with his own gun.  The smartest thing to do is to use his partner's gun, but now he can't.

Having said that, regarding distribution practices I wholeheartedly agree.  I fear (and I think rightfully so) that the present administration will try to overreach and a more conservative administration will pay only lip service, if that.  But if we had a President who decided to actually engage gun manufacturers and suggest to them that we respect the right to keep and bear arms, we acknowledge that profit is fine and good, but flooding the market with guns while knowing many of those are getting to market through straw purchases, etc. is immoral and dangerous, there could be some actual change.  I am a huge supporter of gun rights, but the NRA is little more than a lobbying arm for gun manufacturers.  If you notice, they tend to oppose measures that would make gun sales more difficult.  I don't think that's a coincidence.  I don't blame the manufacturers -- the most popular guns will of course be the ones criminals get, just as the most popular drugs are the ones that will be sold in schools around the country (I'm looking at you, oxycodone).  But they can have a role to play in stemming the tide, which I think would be imminently helpful.

Very respectfully agreeing with David Garner, and very respectfully disagreeing with Dave Benke. 

I love the idea of Smart guns, but until we can get the technology as reliable as in Judge Dredd, I'm not so sure that'll work.  I'm all for researching it though.  But outside of the movies I think it will go over as well as DRM security for music, movies, and games.  It hurts the consumer and does extremely little for criminals.

I'm all in favor of background checks and things like that. 

Oddly enough I think the solution is in socialization, access to affordable mental health care, reducing stigmas for people who get mental health care and things of that nature. 
I don't think it's movies or games that lead to things like this either.  But if there's one way to get America's attention for extended periods of time, you'll get on the news with a killing spree. 
LCMS raised
LCMS theology major
LCMS sem grad
Atheist

Steven W Bohler

Rev. Austin,

You applaud Dr. Benke and his participation in this. Would you say the same thing if I (or some other pastor) were to write editorials promoting concealed carry laws and encouraging responsible citizens to consider getting a permit?

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk