How I Became a Critic of Guns

Dale · Sep 7, 2024

In the mid 1970’s I was living in Ft. Lauderdale and working in a water plant. Our power company was Florida Power and Light (now Florida Power), and FPL workers went on strike. As part of the strike, union activists started shooting the power lines down. Neighborhoods were struck with sporadic power outages for this reason. I don’t have this on videotape, but it looks like union activists were firing high powered rifles into the air in populated areas. I don’t know how many shots you have to fire to bring a power line down, especially after dark. After all, they don’t want to get caught doing it. What goes up must come down, so it may be pure luck no one was hurt.

When the strike was settled, the union demanded that no one be prosecuted for shooting down power lines. Florida Power and Light agreed to this. I don’t see how the union can even be allowed to make such a demand. I thought that union activists shooting at power lines should be prosecuted to the limit of the law.

I was working in a water plant and we were trying to keep the water flowing. People shooting the power lines down certainly weren’t helping us.

I don’t know if anything like this has happened anywhere else in the country. The media doesn’t always help us keep track of things that are important. This series of events helped to convince me that widespread ownership of guns in modern America is making life worse for the average citizen. It certainly makes life more dangerous. We can’t assume that the people who own guns are going to be reasonable or responsible. This is true even when they aren’t exactly criminals in the usual sense of the word.

d taylor · Sep 7, 2024

Dale said:
In the mid 1970’s I was living in Ft. Lauderdale and working in a water plant. Our power company was Florida Power and Light (now Florida Power), and FPL workers went on strike. As part of the strike, union activists started shooting the power lines down. Neighborhoods were struck with sporadic power outages for this reason. I don’t have this on videotape, but it looks like union activists were firing high powered rifles into the air in populated areas. I don’t know how many shots you have to fire to bring a power line down, especially after dark. After all, they don’t want to get caught doing it. What goes up must come down, so it may be pure luck no one was hurt.

When the strike was settled, the union demanded that no one be prosecuted for shooting down power lines. Florida Power and Light agreed to this. I don’t see how the union can even be allowed to make such a demand. I thought that union activists shooting at power lines should be prosecuted to the limit of the law.

I was working in a water plant and we were trying to keep the water flowing. People shooting the power lines down certainly weren’t helping us.

I don’t know if anything like this has happened anywhere else in the country. The media doesn’t always help us keep track of things that are important. This series of events helped to convince me that widespread ownership of guns in modern America is making life worse for the average citizen. It certainly makes life more dangerous. We can’t assume that the people who own guns are going to be reasonable or responsible. This is true even when they aren’t exactly criminals in the usual sense of the word.

-

You have condemnation for guns, but nothing for union activist.

jas3 · Sep 7, 2024

I almost don't believe this is a serious post. Do you think unions don't commit vandalism without guns?

Dale · Sep 7, 2024

d taylor said:
-

You have condemnation for guns, but nothing for union activist.

I said they should be prosecuted to the limit of the law. What else can I say? Yes, I am concerned about union violence.
Some say that there is no right to strike against the public interest. That would certainly include power workers going on strike.

Dale · Sep 7, 2024

jas3 said:
I almost don't believe this is a serious post. Do you think unions don't commit vandalism without guns?

I'm sure that unions, or striking workers, do commit vandalism without guns. When I lived in the Atlanta area, workers at a Lays Potato Chip factory went on strike. A widow with six children who worked there decided that she could not afford to strike. While she was at work, her house burned down, and it wasn't insured. I have always assumed that was an act of union violence. As far as I know, no one was ever prosecuted.

Richard T · Sep 8, 2024

You are basing your decision to ban guns on your own personal experience rather than looking at the big picture. Your experience is valid but gun rights are a national issue. I have never had a power company strike but I have gotten peace of mind for having a gun available should I need it. That too is a personal experience but probably one shared by nearly all gun owners. You also have to consider the framers intent. A disarmed populace can fight tyranny if the option is ever needed. The framer's too want you to be able to defend yourself.
That deputy in Lee County in FL sure needed a concealed carry passerby to help him from getting shot. I am glad that turned out ok because of gun ownership rights. Armed Motorist Saves Deputy Under Attack, Called Out as Hero by Sheriff
Unlike others I really don't think too much about if gun restrictions would save lives etc. It is a right that shall not be infringed and the number of crimes that are deterred by guns can not be measured. Sure i get peace from God first, but a handy weapon in a time of need is useful. I have lived in other nations too. One had many cops that did not even carry. Lots of knifings there too. Another had armed guards at nearly every business that took money. Every subdivision had a gate and nearly every house has bars. Crime is pretty low there. I doubt America can afford that though. They can't even arm guards at most schools.

Dale · Sep 10, 2024

Richard T said:
You are basing your decision to ban guns on your own personal experience rather than looking at the big picture. Your experience is valid but gun rights are a national issue. I have never had a power company strike but I have gotten peace of mind for having a gun available should I need it. That too is a personal experience but probably one shared by nearly all gun owners. You also have to consider the framers intent. A disarmed populace can fight tyranny if the option is ever needed. The framer's too want you to be able to defend yourself.
That deputy in Lee County in FL sure needed a concealed carry passerby to help him from getting shot. I am glad that turned out ok because of gun ownership rights. Armed Motorist Saves Deputy Under Attack, Called Out as Hero by Sheriff
Unlike others I really don't think too much about if gun restrictions would save lives etc. It is a right that shall not be infringed and the number of crimes that are deterred by guns can not be measured. Sure i get peace from God first, but a handy weapon in a time of need is useful. I have lived in other nations too. One had many cops that did not even carry. Lots of knifings there too. Another had armed guards at nearly every business that took money. Every subdivision had a gate and nearly every house has bars. Crime is pretty low there. I doubt America can afford that though. They can't even arm guards at most schools.

Richard: “You are basing your decision to ban guns on your own personal experience rather than looking at the big picture.”

Before telling you what I know about the big picture, I’ll give some more personal experience. About the same time as the power strike, I lived with my parents in a house on a canal. Being on a canal, there were ducks, which didn’t belong to us or the neighbors, but they often waddled across the lawn. My Dad was reading the paper with his back to a window with a view of the canal when the window suddenly shattered. A car full of teens, some distance away, on the other side of the canal, hastily took off. My parents called the police. A police officer told my father that the gun someone fired at our house may have been a pellet gun and the pellet would disintegrate on impact, so we would never find it. We never found a bullet, and no one was ever charged. Apparently a teenager was firing at a duck on the lawn and the teens left when they saw that the bullet had hit a window. My father may have come close to being killed or seriously injured on that day.

We weren't the only ones to have such problems. Our next door neighbors also had ducks wandering around their lawn. One day a teenage boy on the other side of the canal pointed a rifle or BB gun at their property, probably aiming at a duck on the lawn. Our neighbor quickly grabbed his rifle, stepped outside and aimed his rifle at the kid. The kids on the other side decided that they had business elsewhere. Widespread ownership of guns creates endless possibilities for injury and conflict.

Dale · Sep 10, 2024

Richard T said:
You are basing your decision to ban guns on your own personal experience rather than looking at the big picture. Your experience is valid but gun rights are a national issue. I have never had a power company strike but I have gotten peace of mind for having a gun available should I need it. That too is a personal experience but probably one shared by nearly all gun owners. You also have to consider the framers intent. A disarmed populace can fight tyranny if the option is ever needed. The framer's too want you to be able to defend yourself.
That deputy in Lee County in FL sure needed a concealed carry passerby to help him from getting shot. I am glad that turned out ok because of gun ownership rights. Armed Motorist Saves Deputy Under Attack, Called Out as Hero by Sheriff
Unlike others I really don't think too much about if gun restrictions would save lives etc. It is a right that shall not be infringed and the number of crimes that are deterred by guns can not be measured. Sure i get peace from God first, but a handy weapon in a time of need is useful. I have lived in other nations too. One had many cops that did not even carry. Lots of knifings there too. Another had armed guards at nearly every business that took money. Every subdivision had a gate and nearly every house has bars. Crime is pretty low there. I doubt America can afford that though. They can't even arm guards at most schools.

Richard: “The framer's too want you to be able to defend yourself.”

You are mistaken. This is a myth promoted by gun organizations. Remember Thomas Paine, the famous pamphleteer of the American Revolution? I have read Thomas Paine, and the only guns that he is concerned with are those used for the common defense. Take a look at these quotes.

“Four times between 1876 and 1939, the US Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.”

“US and state Supreme Court rulings have often shown that public safety is the first priority of government.”

“Michael Waldman, a constitutional lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice, has argued that the framers of the current constitution did not consider the rights of individuals to guns outside of militia service at all when they were drafting the Second Amendment. In his book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Waldman wrote that the notes of James Madison and the other framers from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did not mention private gun ownership, guns for self-defense, or guns for hunting.”

Source
American Carnage, Thomas Gabor & Fred Guttenberg
Coral Gables: Mango, 2023
Pages 121, 127 & 120

Richard T · Sep 10, 2024

Dale said:
Richard: “The framer's too want you to be able to defend yourself.”

You are mistaken. This is a myth promoted by gun organizations. Remember Thomas Paine, the famous pamphleteer of the American Revolution? I have read Thomas Paine, and the only guns that he is concerned with are those used for the common defense. Take a look at these quotes.

“Four times between 1876 and 1939, the US Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.”

“US and state Supreme Court rulings have often shown that public safety is the first priority of government.”

“Michael Waldman, a constitutional lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice, has argued that the framers of the current constitution did not consider the rights of individuals to guns outside of militia service at all when they were drafting the Second Amendment. In his book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Waldman wrote that the notes of James Madison and the other framers from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did not mention private gun ownership, guns for self-defense, or guns for hunting.”

Source
American Carnage, Thomas Gabor & Fred Guttenberg
Coral Gables: Mango, 2023
Pages 121, 127 & 120

thanks for the counterpoints. I will keep more of an open mind on the Founders intentions. However, even if the founders were indifferent, states like Oklahoma should have the right for their militia's to be armed.

Yes, here one can parse the meaning of well trained but I don't think you could justify the kind of gun restrictions like the EU has across all states. To have meaningful reductions in crime it not only would take decades, but even a single outlet for weapons would furnish criminals their supply. De-arming America in the near and mid-term would be very dangerous too. In my thinking the number of deaths though is not as important as having this freedom that really is empowering. Unlike a few others who are too gung ho with their guns, I would rather flee if that is an option but I have had solace several times knowing that a weapon is accessible when faced with an uncertain or even hostile environment.

Ironically, Oklahoma does support immigrant rights to participate in the Militia.

"The Militia of the State of Oklahoma shall consist of all ablebodied citizens of the United States and all other ablebodied persons who shall be or shall have declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States, who shall be more than seventeen (17) years of age and not more than seventy (70) years of age" 2006 Oklahoma Code - Title 44. — Militia

Richard T · Sep 10, 2024

Dale said:
Richard: “You are basing your decision to ban guns on your own personal experience rather than looking at the big picture.”

Before telling you what I know about the big picture, I’ll give some more personal experience. About the same time as the power strike, I lived with my parents in a house on a canal. Being on a canal, there were ducks, which didn’t belong to us or the neighbors, but they often waddled across the lawn. My Dad was reading the paper with his back to a window with a view of the canal when the window suddenly shattered. A car full of teens, some distance away, on the other side of the canal, hastily took off. My parents called the police. A police officer told my father that the gun someone fired at our house may have been a pellet gun and the pellet would disintegrate on impact, so we would never find it. We never found a bullet, and no one was ever charged. Apparently a teenager was firing at a duck on the lawn and the teens left when they saw that the bullet had hit a window. My father may have come close to being killed or seriously injured on that day.

We weren't the only ones to have such problems. Our next door neighbors also had ducks wandering around their lawn. One day a teenage boy on the other side of the canal pointed a rifle or BB gun at their property, probably aiming at a duck on the lawn. Our neighbor quickly grabbed his rifle, stepped outside and aimed his rifle at the kid. The kids on the other side decided that they had business elsewhere. Widespread ownership of guns creates endless possibilities for injury and conflict.

Yes, those experiences are personal and effect us all. I doubt you could outlaw pellet guns but that point does not matter. You were a victim it was a shame that it happened.
My policy is to try and not be outgunned. I once brought a blackjack to try and stop a fight where two groups had gathered outside my college dorm. A man was bashing another person's head against the pavement. As I approached the attacker turned his attention to me and swung on me, I probably could have used the blackjack, but really did not want to escalate this to a large group fighting. I had two friends with me too but instead of fighting, (the one getting bashed had already pulled a knife) I backed off, diffusing the situation somewhat. I left called the police and they got there in time but the one man suffered serious hospitalization. My intervention though I think took the edge off a bit.

When i lived in Florida lots of home invasions in my area. Also, just a few years ago I had a car that was playing cat and mouse with me while checking me out passing me, then slowing until I passed a couple of times. So some troublemakers, on a pretty deserted road. When they were ahead of me, I signaled thinking to evade and get off the the interstate. They saw the signal and crossed the shoulder to exit in front of me. It is 3AM in a medium sized city so I decided to swerve back to the highway, and floored the my vehicle onward. I loaded my gun in case they might try to catch up and was happy that the weapon was available. I think at the time I did not have a cell phone but I doubt that it would have mattered. Shooting always should be a last resort, but you have to be prepared. God helps with this too but there are times when a weapon could be justly used.
Its the new West, and everyone is welcome to their own approach. Better to have a weapon and not need it than to have a need and none are around, is what I would look to. Lock safely, get some training, know the state laws and be prepared.

Jipsah · Sep 13, 2024

d taylor said:
-

You have condemnation for guns, but nothing for union activist.

Guns are OK, but thy do make useful tools for bad actors. I see no virtue in high capacity magazines; American troops fought WW2 with battle rifles fed with 8 round stripper clips. It's difficult for me to see why Joe Doak needs a 30 round mag for defense, much less for hunting, paper punching, or shooting up shopping malls and elementary schools. "But it's mah rahts!" doesn't signify, unles we'd like to argue that the 2nd amendment allows anyone to tote a belt fed Browning .50 with attached grenade launcher.

I'm perfectly content to have a box-stock 20 gauge pump for a house gun and a .357 snubby loaded with .38 blue-tip Glaser Safety Slugs on the rare occasions when I've felt inspired to carry. I've drawn on one person in my life, and he suddenly saw my side of the argument and remembered an important appointment elsewhere that didn't allow him to stay and discuss the situation. (The coppers saw to his welfare after that, and even provided him free room and board at the state's expense for a couple of years. He'd been a very bad boy, it seems.)

So am I a 2A guy? Yeah, with reservations. I'd say that mag restrictions are't aren't part of 2A right any more than automatic weapons or shoulder-fired missles. I'd restrict civiians to bolt/lever/or pump action long guns, and revolvers.

Dale · Sep 14, 2024

Richard T said:
Yes, those experiences are personal and effect us all. I doubt you could outlaw pellet guns but that point does not matter. You were a victim it was a shame that it happened.
My policy is to try and not be outgunned. I once brought a blackjack to try and stop a fight where two groups had gathered outside my college dorm. A man was bashing another person's head against the pavement. As I approached the attacker turned his attention to me and swung on me, I probably could have used the blackjack, but really did not want to escalate this to a large group fighting. I had two friends with me too but instead of fighting, (the one getting bashed had already pulled a knife) I backed off, diffusing the situation somewhat. I left called the police and they got there in time but the one man suffered serious hospitalization. My intervention though I think took the edge off a bit.

When i lived in Florida lots of home invasions in my area. Also, just a few years ago I had a car that was playing cat and mouse with me while checking me out passing me, then slowing until I passed a couple of times. So some troublemakers, on a pretty deserted road. When they were ahead of me, I signaled thinking to evade and get off the the interstate. They saw the signal and crossed the shoulder to exit in front of me. It is 3AM in a medium sized city so I decided to swerve back to the highway, and floored the my vehicle onward. I loaded my gun in case they might try to catch up and was happy that the weapon was available. I think at the time I did not have a cell phone but I doubt that it would have mattered. Shooting always should be a last resort, but you have to be prepared. God helps with this too but there are times when a weapon could be justly used.
Its the new West, and everyone is welcome to their own approach. Better to have a weapon and not need it than to have a need and none are around, is what I would look to. Lock safely, get some training, know the state laws and be prepared.

Richard: “Yes, those experiences are personal and effect us all.”

Thanks. You are easier to talk to than some of the folks I run into.

I have had other personal experiences. I have left two jobs because I was being threatened by gun toters. Those were the highest paying jobs I’ve ever had. For me, gun toters are the cause of poverty.

Dale · Sep 14, 2024

Richard T said:
thanks for the counterpoints. I will keep more of an open mind on the Founders intentions. However, even if the founders were indifferent, states like Oklahoma should have the right for their militia's to be armed.

Yes, here one can parse the meaning of well trained but I don't think you could justify the kind of gun restrictions like the EU has across all states. To have meaningful reductions in crime it not only would take decades, but even a single outlet for weapons would furnish criminals their supply. De-arming America in the near and mid-term would be very dangerous too. In my thinking the number of deaths though is not as important as having this freedom that really is empowering. Unlike a few others who are too gung ho with their guns, I would rather flee if that is an option but I have had solace several times knowing that a weapon is accessible when faced with an uncertain or even hostile environment.

Ironically, Oklahoma does support immigrant rights to participate in the Militia.

"The Militia of the State of Oklahoma shall consist of all ablebodied citizens of the United States and all other ablebodied persons who shall be or shall have declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States, who shall be more than seventeen (17) years of age and not more than seventy (70) years of age" 2006 Oklahoma Code - Title 44. — Militia

Richard, thanks for your comments.

Richard: “However, even if the founders were indifferent, states like Oklahoma should have the right for their militia's to be armed.”

Today, the National Guard is the militia. Have you ever noticed that National Guard can be called out by the Governor or by the President? The Governor of any state can call out the NG to deal with a riot, or to deal with national disasters. The President can also deploy the Guard.

Here are some excerpts from a reference book that I have.

Militia Saundra J. Reinke

p. 406 col 2
This traditional mission of the militia is now fulfilled in the U.S. military structure and the National Guard units of the various states. The Dick Act (1903) officially began the process of increasing Federal government control over the various state militias.

National Guard Robewrt J. Spitzer

p.428 col 2
The reserve fighting force of the American military establishment, the National Guard was formerly called the volunteer or organized militia. It is controlled by both the federal and state governments and consists of the Army National Guard, the Air Guard, and the Naval Reserve.

p.429 col 2
The granting of such sweeping power over the militias (both state-based and national) aroused much opposition from Anti-Federalists and others who wanted to preserve some military powers for the states, and who were concerned that the national government might simply neglect, or refuse to organize, militias at a time when state militias squared off against each other. Southern states in particular were concerned that they would not be able to rely on national government assistance to suppress slave rebellions. Those fears prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, which codified the right to form militias, whether state or national.

Guns in American Society, Vol 2
An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law
Gregg Lee Carter, Editor
Santa Barbara, CA & Denver, CO: ABC CLIO

Richard T · Sep 15, 2024

Y

Dale said:
Richard, thanks for your comments.

Richard: “However, even if the founders were indifferent, states like Oklahoma should have the right for their militia's to be armed.”

Today, the National Guard is the militia. Have you ever noticed that National Guard can be called out by the Governor or by the President? The Governor of any state can call out the NG to deal with a riot, or to deal with national disasters. The President can also deploy the Guard.

Here are some excerpts from a reference book that I have.

Militia Saundra J. Reinke

p. 406 col 2
This traditional mission of the militia is now fulfilled in the U.S. military structure and the National Guard units of the various states. The Dick Act (1903) officially began the process of increasing Federal government control over the various state militias.

National Guard Robewrt J. Spitzer

p.428 col 2
The reserve fighting force of the American military establishment, the National Guard was formerly called the volunteer or organized militia. It is controlled by both the federal and state governments and consists of the Army National Guard, the Air Guard, and the Naval Reserve.

p.429 col 2
The granting of such sweeping power over the militias (both state-based and national) aroused much opposition from Anti-Federalists and others who wanted to preserve some military powers for the states, and who were concerned that the national government might simply neglect, or refuse to organize, militias at a time when state militias squared off against each other. Southern states in particular were concerned that they would not be able to rely on national government assistance to suppress slave rebellions. Those fears prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, which codified the right to form militias, whether state or national.

Guns in American Society, Vol 2
An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law
Gregg Lee Carter, Editor
Santa Barbara, CA & Denver, CO: ABC CLIO

Yes, one can interpret that way. It is a state's right though to determine what their militia is. I will admit though that all it takes is enough justices to view the Constitution your way and do an about face on individual rights for gun ownership. If that occurs though I imagine some states will try to secede.
I am sorry that you had some poor experiences at your work place. I had a workplace experience too but I reported it and hardened my defense. Whatever way we react trusting God in the end is all we can do. God bless!

Dale · Sep 16, 2024

Richard T said:
You are basing your decision to ban guns on your own personal experience rather than looking at the big picture. Your experience is valid but gun rights are a national issue. I have never had a power company strike but I have gotten peace of mind for having a gun available should I need it. That too is a personal experience but probably one shared by nearly all gun owners. You also have to consider the framers intent. A disarmed populace can fight tyranny if the option is ever needed. The framer's too want you to be able to defend yourself.
That deputy in Lee County in FL sure needed a concealed carry passerby to help him from getting shot. I am glad that turned out ok because of gun ownership rights. Armed Motorist Saves Deputy Under Attack, Called Out as Hero by Sheriff
Unlike others I really don't think too much about if gun restrictions would save lives etc. It is a right that shall not be infringed and the number of crimes that are deterred by guns can not be measured. Sure i get peace from God first, but a handy weapon in a time of need is useful. I have lived in other nations too. One had many cops that did not even carry. Lots of knifings there too. Another had armed guards at nearly every business that took money. Every subdivision had a gate and nearly every house has bars. Crime is pretty low there. I doubt America can afford that though. They can't even arm guards at most schools.

Richard: “I have lived in other nations too. One had many cops that did not even carry. Lots of knifings there too.”

Are you aware that the USA is the only country in the world where police routinely wear bullet proof vests? It is the only country in the world where they are needed.

Richard T · Sep 16, 2024

I would rethink that conclusion based on this Police Killings by Country 2024
I am sure the poorer nations police would like bullet proof vests, I mean with some nations having the rate of officers killed far more then the USA. Philippines with 6000 killed and one third the population means their killed rate is about 18X the USA. Among Western nations the USA does stand out. Much of that I suspect is inequality, the type and level of diversity of races in the USA and factors other than just guns. So the vests are prudent though not all police in the USA do wear the vests. Around government buildings you often see some heavily armed (machine guns) police in Brussels or Paris.

Dale · Sep 24, 2024

Richard T said:
You are basing your decision to ban guns on your own personal experience rather than looking at the big picture. Your experience is valid but gun rights are a national issue. I have never had a power company strike but I have gotten peace of mind for having a gun available should I need it. That too is a personal experience but probably one shared by nearly all gun owners. You also have to consider the framers intent. A disarmed populace can fight tyranny if the option is ever needed. The framer's too want you to be able to defend yourself.
That deputy in Lee County in FL sure needed a concealed carry passerby to help him from getting shot. I am glad that turned out ok because of gun ownership rights. Armed Motorist Saves Deputy Under Attack, Called Out as Hero by Sheriff
Unlike others I really don't think too much about if gun restrictions would save lives etc. It is a right that shall not be infringed and the number of crimes that are deterred by guns can not be measured. Sure i get peace from God first, but a handy weapon in a time of need is useful. I have lived in other nations too. One had many cops that did not even carry. Lots of knifings there too. Another had armed guards at nearly every business that took money. Every subdivision had a gate and nearly every house has bars. Crime is pretty low there. I doubt America can afford that though. They can't even arm guards at most schools.

Police officers being killed by gunfire in the US is a serious problem. If we can’t protect the police, who can we protect?

According to the Fraternal Order of Police, 46 police officers were killed by gunfire in 2023. Apparently 20 of those died after ambush attacks. Since 378 officers in the US were shot in 2023, including 138 shot in ambush attacks, the number shot is much higher than the number who died. Patrick Yoes, the President of FOP, attributes the high survival rate to “dramatic improvements” in “anti-ballistic technology,” which means bullet proof vests.

Quote from Patrick Yoes
“… 378 officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023, the highest number the FOP has ever recorded. Thankfully, because of dramatic improvements in medical trauma science and anti-ballistic technology, the lethality of these attacks has been reduced and only 46 of the officers shot in the line of duty were killed. There were 115 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers this year, which resulted in 138 officers shot, 20 of whom were killed.”

Yes, America does pay a high price for the large number of guns in private ownership.

Source
378 Officers Shot in the Line of Duty in 2023

Dale · Sep 24, 2024

Since we are on Christian Forums, what do churches say about guns and gun control?

Quotes from the United Methodist Resolution of 1976:

“We do not believe there is any constitutional personal right to bear arms. As the United States Supreme Court has ruled a number of times, the Second Amendment had to do with the militia, currently comparable to the National Guard.”

[The Resolution goes on to advocate] “licensing of all gun owners and the registration of all firearms.”

[Further,] “special controls should be applied to the handgun, for it is the most deadly and least utilitarian weapon in American society. Because the handgun is concealable, it is the weapon of crime; because the handgun is available, it is the instrument used in suicides and crimes of passion.”

[Government is called on to] “establish a national ban on the importation, manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns and handgun ammunition with reasonable limited exceptions.”

[Exceptions include] “police, military, licensed security guards, antique dealers who have guns in unfireable condition, and licensed pistol clubs where firearms are kept on the premises under secure conditions.”

A 1992 Resolution repeats the same concern about the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

It also calls for “supporting gun control legislation” and dialogue leading to the establishment of “responsible gun regulations.” Comment on restricting the importation and manufacture of guns and ammunition is broadened from handguns to all guns. The Resolution also calls on the government to “outlaw the sale and manufacture of all automatic weapon conversion kits.”

The 2000 Resolution focuses on school shootings and says that “a significant total reduction in the numbers of guns in our communities” is a goal of ministry.

The 2000 Resolution calls “upon all nations in which the United Methodist Church has a presence to establish national bans on ownership by the general public of handguns, assault weapons, automatic weapon conversion kits, and weapons that cannot be detected by traditionally used metal-detection devices.

Source:
Guns in American Society, Vol 2
An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law
Gregg Lee Carter, Editor
Santa Barbara, CA & Denver, CO: ABC CLIO
Article
Methodist Church, United byJonathan R. Almond p.395-7

Dale · Sep 24, 2024

We could try the Presbyterians.

The Presbyterian Church (USA), a Protestant denomination of some 2.5 million members nationwide, supports gun control legislation, the banning of private ownership of assault weapons, and asserts the inappropriateness of the use of deadly force in defense of personal property. The Presbyterian Church first passed Resolutions on gun control in response to the assassinations of the 1960’s. The first two Resolutions were in 1972 and 1985.

It has urged church members to remove handguns and assault weapons from their homes.

[The church calls for government] “to prohibit the manufacture, sale, ownership, and possession of concealable weapons that are not specifically designed and registered for sporting use or law enforcement.”

1990 &1999 Resolutions affirm “the legitimate ownership and use of firearms for hunting, target shooting, collecting, and other recreational sports.”

The Resolutions continue to criticize the “misuse of guns.”

Source:
Guns in American Society, Vol 2
An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law
Gregg Lee Carter, Editor
Santa Barbara, CA & Denver, CO: ABC CLIO
Article
Presbyterian Church (USA) by Murray S. Blackadar, p.478-9

How I Became a Critic of Guns

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads