Gun Control

[micah]

Questions:

How much gun control are you ok with? Would you be ok with people having machine guns? Nuclear weapons? High caliber military grade 100mm artillery? Everyone here is saying they are against gun control. Please clarify what you are against, as “gun control” is very broad.

Are background checks ok?
Are limits on felons owning guns ok?
Are limits on the mentally ill ok?
Are mandatory waiting periods ok?

Also, will someone please lay out the argument that God and the prophets are against gun control? Everyone seems to believe that this is crystal clear, yet despite reading all the many, many quotations in this thread I do not follow your argument. Just quoting a bunch of scriptures and prophets then saying they agree with you doesn’t really work. I need a clear organized argument.

I am also very sorry that you will discount the large amount of epidemiological evidence available because it doesn’t agree with your point. You are right that David Hemenway is prolific, but that doesn’t mean his science is wrong. Ian, please clarify exactly what is weak about Hemenway’s research. How do you know that his life mission is to promote an agenda? Couldn’t it also be that he is for gun control because that is what the evidence shows? Why do you discount that possibility? Also, you repeatedly make the claim that it doesn’t support Betsy’s argument is an easy thing to say. Please explain HOW it doesn’t support Betsy’s claims. I do concede that research can be biased, but I really doubt that Hemenway is committing fraud in his research. Also, why do you believe Gary Kleck’s data blindly (which has been criticized heavily)?

Personally, I have tried to stay away from this debate. It is extremely clear that everyone’s minds are made up, and that no one is really open to examining the issue. It is laughable how everyone is claiming that this thread has “changed” them. What I think has happened is that teaming up against Betsy has likely made you all dig more into your politically conservative republican nature to be against gun control. Fox News told you so, how can they be wrong! This has very little to do with the data. It is has everything to do with trying to win an argument.

This is what I have come to expect from the Huntingtons. The level of stubbornness, self-righteousness, and ego is astounding. I really am ok with people not agreeing with me. I like to see other perspectives. I have enjoyed reading both sides of the argument in the literature. I have not enjoyed reading this thread. This thread, like much of this forum, is not about exploration of ideas. It is about who can be the biggest bully. It is about proving you are right no matter what the cost, no matter what the tactic, no matter what the data says (sounds like a lawyer at trial--coincidence?) It is about trying to prove that your view is the only “Godly” view and that everyone else is unrighteous.

What this issue really comes down to is that we need more research, we need more investigation, we need more solutions. Part of this is because congress has banned funding to the CDC to research gun violence. (Explain to me why this is a good thing, please?) I only pray that the our politicians will someday see the light and pour money into finding solutions to gun violence. From the research currently available and from my own personal experience working with people significantly affected by gun violence, I believe that it is true that limiting access to firearms decreases deaths. Until more evidence is produced, more experimentation done, I will continue to advocate for changes that I believe will prevent deaths.

[Betsy]

Also Edward your mind was made up before this discussion started.

[Ian]

[Tuly]

Micah - This is what I have come to expect from the Huntingtons. The level of stubbornness, self-righteousness, and ego is astounding. I really am ok with people not agreeing with me. I like to see other perspectives. I have enjoyed reading both sides of the argument in the literature. I have not enjoyed reading this thread. This thread, like much of this forum, is not about exploration of ideas. It is about who can be the biggest bully. It is about proving you are right no matter what the cost, no matter what the tactic, no matter what the data says (sounds like a lawyer at trial--coincidence?) It is about trying to prove that your view is the only “Godly” view and that everyone else is unrighteous.

Sorry to have caused offensiveness but I'm not offended by your candid words and I love you. I think this is what President Uchtdorf calls - "flamed"
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng

In the Internet slang of today, we talk about getting “flamed” by those who disagree with us.

[Edward]

Micah. You are lucky we love you, and I understand that your thoughts were likely expressed in a moment of frustration and stress, but that they also reveal more serious issues. I do not have time right this second to share my thoughts fully, but I am going to. You are turning this issue into a We vs. Them mentality, and you risk creating a divide in the family, as though there were "sides" and we all needed to pick a team.

We are ONE team. One unit. One family. I will address your thoughts in full later tonight. But for now, I will tell you that you have no place suggesting that there are opposing factions and that you are on one and some are on another or that some are better or worse or bullies or victims. We are ALL on the same side. And we all have a DUTY to keep it that way. Do not undermine this family by creating sides or opposition or disunity. You are a part of it too. So think about how you plan to make it better before you spout off on what you think makes it worse.

[John]

Micah, you have made a point to berate the use of personal attacks. You have made it clear that they are at the root of your disdain for the family of which you are a part.

It is laughable how everyone[everyone?] is claiming that this thread has “changed” them. What I think has happened is that teaming up against Betsy has likely made you all dig more into your politically conservative republican nature to be against gun control. Fox News told you so, how can they be wrong!

Your barbed sarcasm reveals that you are more aligned with this family's general character than you might care to be. And your use of it is ironic given the content of your post.

1. I have not been "teaming up against Betsy". I have tried to be respectful in my disagreement with her opinion on this issue, but if you can see where I have belittled or "bullied" her, feel free to throw such words in my face. I do not believe that vigorous disagreement constitutes bullying. I do believe that verbal personal attacks do. (see quote above) I will rely on you to make me aware of specific occasions when I have wrongly resorted to such tactics. I will beg your pardon. However, I do believe that chastening is not bullying if it is offered in an appropriate spirit. But chastening is hard for the chastened. And chastening is a parents duty, is it not?

2. Your tone of disdain seems to make it clear that in your opinion, being of a conservative mind set is not just a different one from your own, but a very low one. Is this not exactly the kind of rhetoric against which you are lashing out? And has my tone ever been such?

3. Your assumption that this thread is not what changed my opinion is mistaken. And your assumption that I am lying about having had my opinion changed is false at best and perhaps even arrogant. Is such a thing a possibility?

4. Please feel free to hold a very low opinion of my intellect. You are not alone in the world. I frequently am reminded of it in many ways and by many people whom I admire.

But back to the topic. I am a changed man in my opinion toward gun control based upon the arguments presented on this thread. Sue me.

[Betsy]

I am a changed man in my opinion toward gun control based upon the arguments presented on this thread

Ok, what arguments?

[James]

I think Micah was calling a spade a.. calling it as it is. You guys judge his post as some angry fit, (how does a bully respond when his or her authority is challenged?) but I think he brings up excellent questions. I am interested to see how they are answered.
I am much more Jungian, evolutionist, socialist, etc than I ever was before.

[Ian]

i’ll try to answer a few of micah’s questions.

earlier, betsy defined gun control as “a gun ban and then a sweeping gun buy back.” we’ve been working under that definition so far. by that definition, gun control is clearly unconstitutional. however, like other constitutional rights, second amendment rights are not “unlimited.” certain limits are arguably constitutional, such as limits on felons or the mentally ill. we could talk about limits like that.

the research of david hemenway is no more reliable that the research of john lott (for example). those guys are constantly fighting each other about the data. both guys seem to have good credentials, but they arrive at opposite conclusions. that’s how research works. take betsy’s “research paper,” for instance. she decided to write a paper in favor of gun control, so she googled some quotes to support her position and called it a research paper. that’s research.

this isn’t about research. it’s true that this has very little to do with data. in my mind, this is about the constitution. not once in micah’s diatribe did he mention the constitution. not once in betsy’s research paper did she mention the constitution. that is the single most important and relevant “issue” for us to “examine,” yet you seem loathe to do it. the prophets have repeated over and over and over again that the constitution is an inspired document and that our duty is to defend the constitution. i will not support any legislative proposal that would violate or undermine our constitutional rights.

[micah]

Micah. You are lucky we love you, and I understand that your thoughts were likely expressed in a moment of frustration and stress, but that they also reveal more serious issues. I do not have time right this second to share my thoughts fully, but I am going to. You are turning this issue into a We vs. Them mentality, and you risk creating a divide in the family, as though there were "sides" and we all needed to pick a team.

We are ONE team. One unit. One family. I will address your thoughts in full later tonight. But for now, I will tell you that you have no place suggesting that there are opposing factions and that you are on one and some are on another or that some are better or worse or bullies or victims. We are ALL on the same side. And we all have a DUTY to keep it that way. Do not undermine this family by creating sides or opposition or disunity. You are a part of it too. So think about how you plan to make it better before you spout off on what you think makes it worse.

No, actually my thoughts were not expressed in a moment of frustration and stress. These are thoughts I have had for a long time and hold to. It is not me that is creating a divide in the family. We all know that certain parts of the family have repeatedly chosen to not be a part of this forum. Why do you think that is?

And what do you mean by "you are lucky we love you." I need to count my lucky stars or something? I do appreciate you in my life, but I have lots of people in my life and, although it would be sad to me to not have your love, I would survive.

[James]

Ian said, "we could talk about limits like that"

Ian, do my questions from page 3 of the thread not relate to the limits you are talking about?
I said,
"the path to unbridled socialism should at least start with plans and actions for how to make our country a safer place. Should guns be like cars? Should we limit the types of guns available for purchase? My uncle owns a powerful auto shotgun which I was able use on some clay pigeons. It can be fired multiple times without cocking so it fires fast like a hand gun. I was overwhelmed by the power in my hands as I obliterated a clay pigeon (after having missed it the first few shots). What not instant background checks and psych evaluations? Registrations? Like with cars?
Also, if we haven't got unbridled socialism yet thengovernment should work for us, not for special interests like the national rifle association. The NRAs bribing power is a problem. Through the mud of my feely stories the point is we need to do something and fast or the onion headline wins."

Could my questions have started a discussion on some of the limits Ian mentioned he'd be willing to talk about?

Ian's response on page 3 was,
"too bad we live in the united states. betsy and james have great ideas, but many of them can’t be implemented in our country."

[Ian]

sure, what do you want to talk about? background checks? registrations? waiting periods?

[micah]

the research of david hemenway is no more reliable that the research of john lott (for example). those guys are constantly fighting each other about the data. both guys seem to have good credentials, but they arrive at opposite conclusions. that’s how research works. take betsy’s “research paper,” for instance. she decided to write a paper in favor of gun control, so she googled some quotes to support her position and called it a research paper. that’s research.

And what university is John Lott affiliated with again? Oh that's right, he's a Fox News columnist. John Lott is the climate change denier of the gun control debate. His work has repeatedly been discredited, yet the conservative media latch on to him as a guru. John Lott and a researcher like Hemenway are not in the same category. And by the way, Hemenway is not at all the only source of research showing that gun ownership is a risk factor for suicide and homicide. Not by far. You can certainly look up the research yourself, but there is study after study showing this.

this isn’t about research. it’s true that this has very little to do with data. in my mind, this is about the constitution. not once in micah’s diatribe did he mention the constitution. not once in betsy’s research paper did she mention the constitution. that is the single most important and relevant “issue” for us to “examine,” yet you seem loathe to do it. the prophets have repeated over and over and over again that the constitution is an inspired document and that our duty is to defend the constitution. i will not support any legislative proposal that would violate or undermine our constitutional rights.

We can talk about the constitution. I have said it before, and yet again, your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is not the only one. As supreme court justice Stevens writes (forgive me Betsy for the block quotes):

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

And also:

The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

And supreme court justice Breyer:

the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

I get that you, and many others (including the most recent majority position of the supreme court), feel that the second amendment protects private citizen gun ownership. But again, there are other valid opinions, other interpretations, that would allow for strict civilian gun control and yet uphold the constitution.

As a second point, are you really saying that the constitution can't or shouldn't be amended? That it is such a sacred document that we should never change it?
Please remember that we have actually amended the constitution on average once every 8 years.

So, in summary:
1. I do not interpret the 2nd amendment to protect private citizen gun rights. The legislature passing gun control does not violate constitutional rights.
2. Even if the 2nd amendment did protect private citizen gun rights, I would advocate amending the constitution.

I, too, agree with defending the constitution. However, I also advocate amending what does not work, what is not good, and what is detrimental to our freedom to life.

[Betsy]

Editing my paper to include a discussion on the constitution!

[Betsy]

Also, I used BYU's EBSCO host to collect data, not google.