'Meaner Streets' in D.C. (by Elizabeth Denlinger)
Even though we don't often weigh in on local D.C. political issues, the Sojourners policy team made an exception on a new piece of legislation that would have a direct impact on gun violence in the District. We signed Sojourners on to a faith-group letter last week opposing the bill described in this New York Times editorial:
The bill, which seems headed toward passage in the House, is advertised by its supporters as a necessary response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down the district's 32-year-old ban on possessing handguns in the home. It is nothing of the sort. The City Council has already passed temporary changes to comply with the ruling and is working on permanent revisions.
This extreme bill goes way beyond what the high court required. Among other things, it would repeal a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and eliminate firearm registration requirements, even for such things as sniper rifles and small, easily concealed semiautomatic handguns. Under the lunatic logic of this bill, made to order for the gun lobby, such rifles could be toted around on the street fully loaded.
Sojourners has a long history in the Columbia Heights neighborhood in D.C., and many of our staff and their families live in the area in addition to working here. For many years we ran a neighborhood center and saw the results of gun violence in the lives of children who attended programs at the center.
So while we agree that the District of Columbia must adhere to the Supreme Court decision on handgun ownership, Congress should listen to residents, local businesses, and organizations and their need for safe streets, schools, and homes, and vote against HR 6691.
Elizabeth Denlinger is deputy director for policy and organizing at Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"For many years we ran a neighborhood center and saw the results of gun violence in the lives of children who attended programs at the center."
This was of course during the time when there was a ban on handguns. Apparently the streets were mean even then.
Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 12:07 PM
Thank you, Elizabeth. You can expect a deluge (starting in about fifteen or twenty minutes) of knee-jerk reactions by people who think the definition of liberty is to allow anyone to walk the streets at anytime with a semi-automatic weapon. I predict the retorts to your well-written article will overlook the NY Times point that "the City Council has already passed temporary changes to comply with the ruling and is working on permanent revisions...this extreme bill goes way beyond what the high court required." You see, for some people, even a registration requirement or a ban on guns in certain public places is a form of tyranny (but you already knew this).
I hope anyone who comes onto this thread cheering the bill will at least read and ponder the entire article so the rest of us don't have to remind them of these things. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: I and I | September 12, 2008 12:42 PM
Hey, if it were up to me, they'd be illegal everywhere. I'd feel safer without them.
Posted by: frankie | September 12, 2008 1:18 PM
In accordance with the prophet I and I's projection, here is the first knee-jerk reaction:
Canada has had gun-registration legislation for something like 6 or 7 years now and, predictably, there is an ongoing debate as to its merits w/ the conservative crowd bemoaning the supposed $1 billion cost of implementing the registry. In Calgary where I live, a city of just over 1 million, gang violence, a sector primarily controlled by the Asian populus, has escalated dramatically over the past 3 to 4 years.
Accordingly, this conservative neck of the woods (all 28 of Alberta's districts in the national parliament are represented by Conservatives) has heard an outcry that gun registration accomplishes nothing, yada, yada.
On the other hand, I would suggest that the rapid increase in this city's population in general and of Asian immigrants in particular in the relevant time frame have more to do with the escalation of gun-related violence than the failure of the gun registry. I would still suggest that anything that can be done to deter the free flow of weapons to the nefarious component of society should be done.
So it's an inconvenience for honest, respectable citizens to have to go thru the hassle of being vetted for a license?? Oh well, it's widely rumored that death and unregulated mayhem is also an inconvenience.
In the book Borderlines which compares American and Canadian society, it's clearly documented that on a proportionate per capita basis, the number of gun-related crimes in your country is something like 10 times what it is here. I have a hard time believing that some form of gun registration wouldn't significantly lower that stat.
Ready, Set, Go! Please begin the "when gun-ownership is criminalized, only criminals will have guns" malarkey now.
Posted by: canucklehead | September 12, 2008 1:37 PM
"This extreme bill goes way beyond what the high court required. Among other things, it would repeal a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and eliminate firearm registration requirements, even for such things as sniper rifles and small, easily concealed semiautomatic handguns. Under the lunatic logic of this bill, made to order for the gun lobby, such rifles could be toted around on the street fully loaded."
The sky is falling.
Posted by: JP | September 12, 2008 2:28 PM
"Ready, Set, Go! Please begin the "when gun-ownership is criminalized, only criminals will have guns" malarkey now."
I can do you one better. When gun ownership is criminalized I will be a criminal.
Posted by: JP | September 12, 2008 2:37 PM
Hey, if it were up to me, they'd be illegal everywhere. I'd feel safer without them.
Posted by: frankie | September 12, 2008 1:18 PM
--------
The logic in this statement is mind-blowing.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 3:04 PM
It is interesting that Sojourners has a "policy team" that tries to influence law at even the local level concerning guns, however their stance on abortion is completely laissez-faire concerning the law. If Sojo really wants abortion to be less common, why not put any laws on the books like there are for gun control to try to limit the casual instances of abortion?
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 3:12 PM
Posted by: canucklehead | September 12, 2008 1:37 PM
'Ready, Set, Go! Please begin the "when gun-ownership is criminalized, only criminals will have guns" malarkey now.'
OK - they will. Proibition - only the criminals were running Rum. The gov't outlawed the Tommy Gun - again only the criminals had them.
Go after the person and not the 'thing' - the world will be a better place.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 3:14 PM
OK, here's my knee-jerk reaction: " . . . from my cold, dead fingers . . ."
Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 3:24 PM
It's interesting how oftentimes those who want to restrict guns the most know the least about them. For instance, what exactly is a semi-automatic? The answer, surprise surprise, is any gun that fires ONCE per trigger pull. Adding the misleading phrase "assault weapon" to semi-auto really is a misnomer; true assault weapons are capable of full-auto fire (aka it fires as long as the trigger is held down, and ammo is still available).
Now, when's the last time someone in favor of restrictions on "assault weapons" pointed this fact out? I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Ngchen | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM
Buy Guy: "Go after the person and not the 'thing'"
Problem is, gun-rights purists don't even want the government to do even that. They fight background checks and gun registrations. Those modest, mildly inconvenient forms of gun control screen the person now so we won't have to "go after" him later. Once those small procedural steps are taken, people can own their gun freely. And those measures are completely consistent with the saying that "guns don't kill, people do."
Posted by: I and I | September 12, 2008 3:35 PM
Peter S.: "however, their stance on abortion..."
I and I the prophet forgot to predict that some would simply try to change the subject. Silly him.
Posted by: I and I | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM
I am curious about Sojourners sudden interest in gun control - do they have polling data that indicate that a stand on gun control will be helpful to the Democratic Party this fall?
Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM
I don't own a gun; and I certainly don't plan to ever own a gun. I find the presence of guns very intimidating; and certainly their presence creates a great feeling if "disrelationship" between people. Guns have no place in our society where enhanced trust among us all is essential to our ability to address successfully the challenges that we face.
Posted by: Nathan James Wallace-Senft | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM
Maybe I could understand the obsession that some people have with guns if I could reconcile such an obsession with the teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus taught us that freedom depends on him (John 8:36), it seems to me that we Christians are therefore obligated to think that our freedom doesn't depend on how many or what kinds of weapons we own, or on what kinds of guarantees our government gives us.
And since the Jesus I read about in the gospels teaches nonviolence, I have a difficult time squaring that with the above-mentioned obsession as well. It simply is incomprehensible to me that Christians would be so obsessed with the ownership and possession of deadly weapons.
I'm not opposed to ownership of firearms. They're useful for sport and for hunting (for those who enjoy those things). I just don't understand the obsession that results in support of the kind of illogic that Ms. Denlinger talks about here.
Silly me, I guess. This is America, which was built on "God, guns and guts." Sounds like blasphemy to me...
Peace,
Posted by: Don | September 12, 2008 3:58 PM
I and I wrote:
Problem is, gun-rights purists don't even want the government to do even that. They fight background checks and gun registrations. Those modest, mildly inconvenient forms of gun control screen the person now so we won't have to "go after" him later. Once those small procedural steps are taken, people can own their gun freely. And those measures are completely consistent with the saying that "guns don't kill, people do."
Actually, except for the fringe, background checks are supported by and large. As long as the check is reasonably fast, and is based on verifiable, public, information, people have no problem with it.
As for registration, well the argument against it is simple. Registration makes a potential confiscation possible. So it is bad :-). Further, very few crimes are actually solved through registration data. Just what would registration achieve, at least w/o a ballistics database to go with it?
Posted by: | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM
I and I wrote:
Problem is, gun-rights purists don't even want the government to do even that. They fight background checks and gun registrations. Those modest, mildly inconvenient forms of gun control screen the person now so we won't have to "go after" him later. Once those small procedural steps are taken, people can own their gun freely. And those measures are completely consistent with the saying that "guns don't kill, people do."
Actually, except for the fringe, background checks are supported by and large. As long as the check is reasonably fast, and is based on verifiable, public, information, people have no problem with it.
As for registration, well the argument against it is simple. Registration makes a potential confiscation possible. So it is bad :-). Further, very few crimes are actually solved through registration data. Just what would registration achieve, at least w/o a ballistics database to go with it?
Posted by: Ngchen | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM
Posted by: I and I | September 12, 2008 3:35 PM
'...gun-rights purists don't even want the government to do even that. They fight background checks and gun registrations...'
I do not find that to be true and maybe I need to clairify. I am saying that the law needs to be on the books now that if you commit a crime and use a gun in the process. Regardless of how much time you are sentenced for the 'crime' there should be an automatice addition of 5 years or twice the sentence because you used a gun. Wheather you fired it or not. Example - it you robb a convience store and point the gun at the clerk demanding the money and are tried and convicted to 2 years in jail - it will be 5 additional non-negotionable years because you had a gun. I believe that this would make people think twice before they touch that gun and it might even prevent someone from doing the crime.
Most of my friends support a national database for criminals who should not be allowed to own a gun. Just keep my name off a list because I own a gun.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM
Just to get a sense of what people are using for their standard:
Raise your hand if you think Christ would carry a gun, register for a gun, or would work to ensure people can carry guns.
My hand is down, but I'd be interested to hear other's perspective on the question.
Posted by: dcrowe | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Ngchen: "Actually, except for the fringe, background checks are supported by and large. As long as the check is reasonably fast, and is based on verifiable public information, people have no problem with it."
They are supported by and large by the general population, yes, but there is a very large fringe of gun-rights purists that do not support them. For example, if I understand correctly, the NRA.
"As for registration, well, the argument against it is simple. Registration makes a potential confiscation possible."
That is based on the kind of paranoia that the NRA thrives on (literally). Most of the public believes that since cars and homes are subject to confiscation in certain circumstances, guns can be as well (such as when a violent crime has been committed by the person who owns the gun).
Posted by: I and I | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM
Posted by: dcrowe | September 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Looked through my Red-Letter Edition and I don't see where the Almighty addressed the 'gun carrying' topic. Now I may have missed it so if you know the reference I would like to look it up. (just messing with ya - lol)
Have a great day -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 4:37 PM
big guy - LOL well, he also doesn't address the 'should I eat people' topic, but I'm pretty sure we can try to infer, right? Really though, I'm being serious...I want to know what you think about this. I'm not trying to be hostile - I really am interested in how people extrapolate the Gospel on these sorts of issues.
Posted by: DC | September 12, 2008 5:09 PM
So pleased I live in Australia whenever this comes up. The banning and buy-back program for guns was the best thing that our last governemtn ever achieved and we generally have no fear ever that anyone will pull a gun on us or that any of our loved ones will be shot.
There are still some guns in the community and farmers/hunters/club members still have access but with tight checks, with registration, with severe restrictions on what types of guns can be owned and with very limited rights for usage.
Of course, we're also generally not paranoid about needing to protect ourselves from our own government, we actually trust the democracy we live in.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | September 12, 2008 5:10 PM
Posted by: I and I | September 12, 2008 4:32 PM
"As for registration, well, the argument against it is simple. Registration makes a potential confiscation possible."
That is based on the kind of paranoia that the NRA thrives on (literally).
That is based on history. That is how in WWII the Nazi's could march into a community - go to city hall and get the records of who own what type of gun and how many and collect them leaving them defensless.
There is no reason why they have to know any of this on law abiding citizens. List and label the criminals all you want - they are going to be the problem. It is like saying that we have a drunk driving problem so we are going to list everyone who purchases liquor so that we know what they are drinking - great, how is that going to help you in catching the criminal? List those who have been caught driving drunk or conficted of dirving drunk. Add to that list - leave the law abiding citizens alone.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 5:14 PM
"That is based on history. That is how in WWII the Nazi's could march into a community - go to city hall and get the records of who own what type of gun and how many and collect them leaving them defensless."
Very strange reasoning. Armed with their hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols, Geman citizens could have held off the Panzer divisions, the Luftwaffe, and armed-to-the-teeth SS?
Sounds like barstool wisdom to me: "that's why I want my gun. With a few rifles, me and the other middle-aged boys with beer bellies could beat a couple platoons of young, highly trained Leathernecks who have hand-held rocket launchers and could call in air strikes."
Posted by: carl copas | September 12, 2008 5:37 PM
Posted by: DC | September 12, 2008 5:09 PM
'should I eat people' - only with Paula Deans BBQ sauce - LOL! (thanks for the chuckle)
I really am interested in how people extrapolate the Gospel on these sorts of issues.
If you are talking about gun ownership - I don't think you will find it in scripture. I don't think that God or Christ really said anything about owning weapons. They said 'Thou shalt not kill' but that is talking about murder. Wheather done with ones hands, rope, knife, spear, blunt object or gun. I believe a lot of what Christ and scriptures has to say is about character, the person. It says that if you lust after a women you have done the nasty. (boy - I am in trouble) I keep telling my wife I can read the menu - I just can't order. (lol) At this point she tells me that it would be the first time that the 'chick' ran off the plate.
Anyway - gun ownership - I don't believe that the Almighty directly addressed it. I believe in someways that Christ as a young boy played with slings and bows and arrows as these were used in hunting, he might have used a spear. But he never shot them at people in the community.
I think that he adress the character of the person more than their pocessions. He address how they lived their life more than what they collectedd during their life.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 5:38 PM
Big guy: "That is based on history. That is how in WWII the Nazi's could march into a community, go to city hall and get the records of who owns what type of gun and how many and collect them leaving them defenseless."
As I said, based on paranoia. I wonder if the neo-Nazis, most of whom are gun-rights purists themselves, use this as a reason to oppose gun registration.
"It is like saying that we have a drunk driving problem so we are going to list everyone who purchases liquor so that we know what they are drinking..."
No, it is like saying there is a drunk-driving and reckless-driving problem so we are going to require everyone who wishes to drive to get a driver's license and register their cars.
Posted by: I and I | September 12, 2008 5:44 PM
Posted by: I and I | September 12, 2008 5:44 PM
As I said, based on paranoia.
I am not paranoid. But I am a constitutionalist and the a second amendment and first for that matter - person. I love the scene in National Treasure where the ccharactoer of Cage quotes the Declairation about the Gov't and the rights of the citizens. It is still there and it is still law.
Please go after the person and not the object. It is a lot easier and will I believe work better. We have 20,000 laws on the books now about gun ownership - why not try one that really hits the criminal where is will really hurt - effect them.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 5:52 PM
"Armed with their hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols, Geman citizens could have held off the Panzer divisions, the Luftwaffe, and armed-to-the-teeth SS?"
That kind of insurgency couldn't pose a problem to a well trained and well equiped army could it?
Posted by: JP | September 12, 2008 6:24 PM
"I don't think you will find it in scripture. I don't think that God or Christ really said anything about owning weapons"
Actually, He told his followers to go out and buy a sword. I don't know if, had His ministry been more recent, He would have told them to buy a gun.
Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 6:34 PM
"Armed with their hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols, Geman citizens could have held off the Panzer divisions, the Luftwaffe, and armed-to-the-teeth SS?"
That's pretty much what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.
Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 6:37 PM
Posted by: JP | September 12, 2008 6:24 PM
That kind of insurgency couldn't pose a problem to a well trained and well equiped army could it?
I don't know - El Sadr did a good job at killing the Allied Forces - Iraqi National Guard and Citizens and then retreated to his Masque for protection that we - according to the Geneva Convention could not shoot at or bomb because it was a 'Holy Place'.
Out own Revolutionary War according to Cornwwallis beat the brightest and best of the British Army and won. The French came but were a little late to the table.
The resistance in Europe did a great job on the Nazi's and assist the Allied Forces in beating them in WWII.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 12, 2008 6:45 PM
Well, Jesus might not own a Rolex, but he sure as heck would be packing heat. Don't y'all know about that verse that says, "...when they ask for your cloak, fill their bellies full of lead..." . Look it up.
And they'll know we are are Christians by Our Love.
Posted by: Sister Marie | September 12, 2008 8:57 PM
"...when they ask for your cloak, fill their bellies full of lead..."
Thanks for the chuckle
Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 9:06 PM
Big Guy, You are taking this topic on like Rambo with two Uzis blazin'
Yee Haw!
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 11:17 PM
I am just one of those bitter Americans that Obama was kind enough to mention--the ones that cling to their guns and religion.
What is it like to go against Revelation 22:16-20 when Jesus (in Red) says not to remove any word from the book? How to you RedWorders justify that? and how to you deal with Jesus quoting scriptures in his ministry? Are only the ones Jesus spoke worthy of the Bible?
And do you not realize that the gospels were written by men? They only quoted Christ as they remembered it later--which is why there are inconsistencies in wording between the gospels.
And if you remove the narrative, how does his words make any sense? There is no context.
It is like reading only the part of one character in a play. You loose all context. Besides I don't want to be on the receiving end of the penalties in Rev 22:16-20.
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 11:34 PM
Peter S: "I am just one of those bitter Americans"
Truer words were never spoken.
Posted by: carl copas | September 13, 2008 2:50 PM
So, if I understand correctly, telling people that terrorists want to blow them up is the politics of fear. Telling people that their fellow citizens want to shoot them is the politics of hope.
Well now the world makes sense.
Posted by: JP | September 13, 2008 7:05 PM
This is the same gun debate that takes place each time a commentary on gun control is posted on this blog so I don't have anything too knew to add except one thing. People who throw in "semi-automatic" before the word "rifle", "weapon" or "handgun" in order to make it sound scarier either don't know much about guns or they do know about guns but are just trying to scare unknowing people.
Almost all hand guns and rifles are semi-automatic. All "semi-automatic" means is that one bullet is fired per trigger pull. Unless someone owns an old bolt-action rifle or Winchester 73, or some type of revolver that requires the hammer be pulled back in order for it to fire, the gun that person owns is semi-automatic. Automatic weapons (ones that fire repeatedly as the firer holds down the trigger) are not legal in DC and would not be legal under this law.
In addition, the phrase "assault rifle" is meaningless in this context. A semi-automatic assault rifle is actually less powerful than other rifles that are legal. Fully automatic assault rifles are illegal. But yes, the phrase "assault rifle" is scary...
Posted by: Eric | September 15, 2008 10:01 AM
Before continuing this tedious debate, go talk to a chaplin in a trauma hospital. See what random gun violence really does. Talk to him or her about the inconsolable families who have lost family members to evil soaked wretches armed to the teeth. The mother who carries her four year old into the emergency ward screaming for help for a child who has been shot in the head by a local thug for no reason whatsoever, a guy who pulled a gun, stared into that mother's eyes, and gunned down her child. Tell her about the wonders of the right to bear arms as the doctor tells her nothing can be done and her child is dead. Tell her that if only she had been carrying her own concealed weapon she might have brought street justice to that mindless criminal. The levels of gun violence in this country are insane. Laws that will not allow cities that are filled with horrible gun violence daily where innocents are killed on the streets and in their homes are equally insane. It's time to end knee jerk reactions and start dealing with this horrible situation.
Posted by: J.S. Brooks | September 16, 2008 6:54 AM
Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 11:34 PM
'...which is why there are inconsistencies in wording between the gospels.'
inconsistencies in the wording not the message. Ask 3 to 5 people about an accident and you will have 5 stories that have different content but put together you will be able to digure out the whole story. Omission is not an inconsistency - just a different part of the whole. (did that make sence?)
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: big guy | September 16, 2008 4:40 PM
Regarding the question of whether "Jesus carried a gun" or not, I find the following episodes from Jesus' life interesting:
1. When he came into contact with a Roman Centurion (who undoubtedly was carrying weaponry), Jesus did not condemn the man's service to the hated Roman military. Nor did Jesus condemn the soldier for carrying a weapon. Instead, Jesus commends the faith of the soldier and heals the soldier's servant (see Matthew 8:5-13).
2. Just prior to His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus' disciples ask Him "Lord, should we strike with our swords" (Luke 22:49)? So, it appears from this text that Jesus' followers were carrying weapons. Why? Jesus seems to have not condemned them for this. Also, after Peter takes out his sword and cuts off the ear of the High Priest's servant (John 18:10-11), Jesus commands Peter to put it away. He did not attack Peter (or his other followers) for carrying a weapon, and he did not turn to the High Priest and call for legislation to outlaw swords.
* I realize that these are arguments from silence. But can't we think a little more critically about these things, particularly when we begin to invoke "Peacenik Jesus" to support our own political cause? Let's not turn Jesus into who we want Him to be. Exactly who is created in who's image, here?
3. Wasn't it Jesus who said the following: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household" (Matthew 10:34-36). Obviously the "sword" Jesus is referring to is metaphorical. But the fact is that Jesus is divisive and is a "stumbling block" (1 Peter 2:6-8) to those who don't believe.
4. Is it not Jesus who will come back again as a conquering King, riding on a white horse to win the final battle against the forces of evil (Revelation 19:11-21)? How imperialistic!
Posted by: Kevin Kelsey | September 25, 2008 11:50 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?