S.C. is 'awash in guns'
Report aims to show state doing little to curb gun violence
By Schuyler Kropf
The Post and Courier
These are a few of the guns from the City of Charleston Police Department that were destroyed in 2006.
Report aims to show state doing little to curb gun violence
On the Web
PDF of 2007 Brady Campaign State Scorecard for South Carolina
South Carolina leaders have done little to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and other dangerous individuals, threatening the public and allowing the gun culture to flourish, a new report from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its supporters contend.
A scorecard for all 50 states released Thursday says South Carolina scored just 11 out of a possible 100 points in its latest state-by-state ranking of gun regulations.
The low figure means South Carolina is doing relatively little toward curbing the level of gun violence that occurs on an almost daily basis, advocates say.
"South Carolina, like many parts of the country, is just awash in guns," Evelyn Dolven of Charleston, the South Carolina Million Mom March chapter spokeswoman, said in an interview.
Others say the Brady Campaign's real agenda is to do away with the private ownership of guns, and that it unfairly lumps honest citizens with gun-toting criminals.
The Brady scorecard rates states on a zero-to-100 scale across five major categories of laws: curbing firearm trafficking; strengthening Brady background checks; child safety; banning military-style weapons; and making it harder to carry guns in public settings.
South Carolina is tied for 23rd on the list. The state could move up on the scale in a number of ways, according to the Brady Campaign. Suggested changes include: requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows with the idea of closing opportunities to felons and the mentally ill; limiting bulk purchase of handguns; limiting magazine capacities; and mandating gun-lock sales with each purchase.
No one knows for sure how many guns exist today in South Carolina. Between 1994 and 2004, more than a half-million handguns were legally sold in the state. South Carolina has nearly four times as many licensed gun dealers as it does McDonald's restaurants, according to recent estimates.
Dolven, who moved to Charleston from California, said one of the biggest hurdles in pursuing tougher laws here has been finding South Carolina lawmakers willing to be leaders on anything perceived as being gun-restrictive. It's politically unpopular, she conceded.
Dolven's latest effort has been focused on trying to find gun-legislation advocates from around the state so they can coordinate efforts. She became involved in the gun-control arena after gun violence struck the lives of two members of her family.
One of the last major pieces of gun legislation to become law in South Carolina expanded gun rights. In 2006, a bill was passed that extended legal coverage under the Castle Doctrine, in which residents can use deadly force against intruders to protect themselves and their property. Someone's business or a car in danger of being hijacked became areas covered by the legally recognized defense.
This session, a few gun-related fights are under way in the Legislature. The South Carolina Press Association is fighting a bill that would make secret the list of holders of concealed weapons permits. Some proponents say burglars are filing Freedom of Information Act requests seeking permit holders' names, then using the information to break into their houses and steal guns. Others contend that abusive spouses are using the FOIA law to get the list to track down women at their new addresses.
S.C. Press Association Executive Director Bill Rogers called the arguments ridiculous and are part of a national gun advocacy campaign aimed at hiding gun ownership. There is no evidence that such FOIA requests are being filed here, Rogers said, adding that common sense says "if anything, a burglar is not going to go into a home where the owner is packing."
The bill would allow the names of permit holders to be released only to law enforcement to aid in an official investigation, or if the list is required to be released pursuant to a subpoena or court order. The legislation's sponsor, Rep. Michael Pitts, R-Laurens, said the bill comes in response to a Virginia newspaper's decision to publish the names of concealed-weapon permit holders in that state, something he called an intrusion.
Pitts downplayed the new Brady report, saying the group has an agenda to do away with all private ownership of guns, leaving them only in the hands of the military and police. South Carolina's legislative climate has been to defend gun ownership rights, he said, while increasing the penalties for those convicted of using weapons illegally.
Around Charleston, those on the front lines of the gun debate had various takes on the gun issue. Bill Dukes, owner of Trader World in North Charleston, said the Brady group is unfairly grouping honest citizens who support the Second Amendment with criminals who use their weapons to abuse it.
North Charleston Police Chief Jon Zumalt said more needs to be done to get a handle on the number of illegal guns on the streets. He is exploring the idea of starting a gun buyback program and is planning to work with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to determine how the illegal gun "pipeline" operates in the region. Among his questions: Is this area being used to procure firearms and ship them elsewhere, or is there any illegal network funneling them here?
Whatever the answers, Zumalt said he knows this: "We take a gun off the street almost every day in this city," he said. "I have never seen so many guns on the streets in my life."
Glenn Smith contributed to this report. Reach Schuyler Kropf at skropf@postandcourier.com or 937-5551.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
Creeker01 (anonymous) says...
So this woman moved here from California? Does she wonder why we haven't all moved to California?
Re:Gunlocks... or rather "Lock up your safety"... if I wanted a gunlock, I could go to any of my local Police Agencies and get as many as I want for free.
More children die in plastic buckets in the USA than are killed by firearms, but I don't see them blaming the buckets.
We'd be better off with Virginia style punishment of people using firearms to commit crime than attempting to blame the legitimate firearm owner. Some Judges with Cajones would help, too.
These people are off in some leftist never-never land attempting to deny Honest Joe of his second amendment rights, and the Noose & Currying is their partner in giving these idiots a platform.
February 1, 2008 at 1:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
skyguy51 (anonymous) says...
There is no correlation between the number of firearm retailers and the number of crime or murders. California has one of the fewest number of firearms retailers in the US and had 2485 homicides and negligent manslaughter cases in 2007. Washington DC has NO firearms dealers, (handgun ownership is prohibited) and had 169 murders and a per capita murder rate 3 an 1/2 times as high as South Carolina. Half of all murders are commited by criminals out on conditional release (parole or probation). Most criminals use stolen firearms. Guns do not cause crime, Criminals seek opportunity to commit crime.
February 1, 2008 at 6:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
As Chief Zumalt stated We Need to Get The ILLEGAL handguns off the street...Tougher sentences for Criminals carrying illegally will do that.So would a Concentration of Officers in high crime areas Looking specifically for violent crimes equipt with information of patterns of crime in the area.
SC is #1 in the US in Violent Crime. We Need to start somewhere.
February 1, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hairy1663 (anonymous) says...
The way I see it the problem isn't to many guns, it's to many people from California. GO BACK!
February 1, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
I do not feel compelled to get any higher on Brady's list. We have the second amendment ultimately to protect us from government. Protection from other citizens is secondary but welcome. Our governments are charged with protecting us. If it fails at any border, then we must defend ourselves.
February 1, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
highclass (anonymous) says...
Never listen to anyone from California, they walk the wrong way to go to the beach.
February 1, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Being low on the Brady list is a "Badge of Honor".
The comparison in the article of Gun Dealers to McDonalds is one of the most asinine statements I have ever read. Comparisons are disigned for things with relationships, what in the Sam Hill is the relationship between Gun Dealers and McDonalds?
February 1, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
robert8096 (anonymous) says...
One thing is for sure we know one home that contains no guns. I wonder if the bad guys reading the article will take note. They can use the Freedom of Information Act to find their address and pay them a visit one dark night. I bet that if this was to happen (Not that I would wish this on them)they would reconsider owning a hand gun. They could attack the intruder with a baseball bat and if they win they could start a campaign to ban ownership of a bat.
I agree when you use a gun in the commission of a crime that it should be a mandatory 25 to life with no chance of parole. People who leave loaded unsecured guns around where children can get their hands on them should also be a mandatory 25 years in prison.
I also agree that there should be some kind of system in place to make sure that people with mental problems should not be allowed to own a gun.
Even though I have sold guns in private sales I agree that this practice should be made illegal. When I sell a gun now I advise the buyer that they will need to meet me at a local gun shop and be able to pass a background check and become the registered owner of the firearm.
Protecting oneself while in their home and car should be a god given right. Property protection is good but I doubt I would shoot someone for beating up my car. Now if they tried to set fire to my house they would be history.
Yes I am a member of the NRA, have two full gun safes and working on a class3 license that will allow me to own automatic weapons.
February 1, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lexylady (anonymous) says...
Doug,
I have been thinking about your constant repetitive post, and I think I have figured out what you mean; ddddduuuuuhhhhlllllaaaaaaalllllaaaaaduuuuuuhhhhhhhhllllllllllaaaaaaaadddduhhhhhhlllaaaaaahdddduuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhllllaaalllllllllllllll.. lol
That should pretty much clear it up folks!! Doug, am I close?
February 1, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
We have always had guns in our house, and we will not give them up so the criminal element can continue to have theirs.
JohnQ, you are being an *ss as usual.
BTW- does the "Q" stand for queer by any chance. Sorry, I usaully try to leave obnoxious people alone, but since you continue to spew your unsavory comments on a daily basis I couldn't resist any longer.
February 1, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lexylady (anonymous) says...
On a serious not, Doug, what it comes down to is that you hate the National rifle association (NRA) because they stand up for the right to bear arms. You, however, hate them because you hate guns and obviously the people that own them.. Correct?
February 1, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OldSalt (anonymous) says...
I am confident in the military's ability to defend this country, BUT, should the need arise, I hope any potential enemy that gets through our defenses also thinks that South Carolina is, "awash in guns," and picks another target -
say, for instance, one on the west coast that will try to blind them with crystals reflecting the sun, confuse them with bad movies and criticize their outfits.
I'm not referring to California, of course, because I'm sure any potential enemy will say, "don't mess with them. They're vegetarians!"
February 1, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rockman577 (anonymous) says...
The report on guns being used in crime. There are 17,200 gun laws. If the police would do thier job crime would go down. I had two guns stolen from my home and the police know who, when, and where the person lives but can not do anything because the person said "they did not do it". Think about that.
Military guns are no more dangerous than any other guns. Guns do not kill, people do. If you check who uses guns just because they get angery or drunk you will find 90% of the problem.
February 1, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
LMAO@JohnQ & lexylady!
February 1, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
South Carolina's legislative climate has been to defend gun ownership rights, he said, while increasing the penalties for those convicted of using weapons illegally.
This is not rocket science. The above statement IS the answer. However, the great state of South Carolina doesn't have a big enough prison system to hold all of them. HELLO!! What kills me are liberals who cry about us throwing too many people in jail, but when those same criminals walk the streets shooting people, the same liberals will complain about the shootings!! One good thing, those "poor unfortunate kids" from Mount Pleasant won't be pulling guns on anybody for awhile. Kids who start with pellet guns and get slapped on the wrist, eventually "graduate" to dealier tools of the trade. Just curious, those of you who don't like Scarlett Wilson, are you in favor of gun control?
February 1, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jsmith1 (anonymous) says...
The Brady Bunch has one goal to disarm lawabiding ..Im sure they gave Wash.DC an A+ for banning ownership of guns.( It has been the murder capital of the country since.They gave Vermont an F-,since Vermont allows all US citizens to carry open or canceled WITHOUT A PERMIT. Vermont has the 2nd Lowest PER CAPITA crime rate in the nation.Chief Zumalt reports in another article that most of the offenders are repeats and wants to keep better tabs on them.Why are they not in jail?.Instead of posting names of permit holders why not post names of judges and porole board members who release these violent offenders.Also make them agree to house these offenders in there houses and subdivisions.
February 1, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
jsmith1, I agree with everything you said, but I was offended by the use of the term "Brady Bunch". Please do not associate Greg, Marsha and the gang with the gun-grabbing Bradys. One group camps out in the Grand Canyon roasting marshmallows over an open fire, one roasts marshamallows over a burning Constitution.
February 1, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hairy1663 (anonymous) says...
greyrider, LMFAO
February 1, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
The Brady Bunch lived in CA, didn't they?
February 1, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
RTC - Yes they did. California also elected Ronald Reagan as governor. Those were the good ole days in California. It's been downhill ever since.
February 1, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
inthelowcountry (anonymous) says...
At no point did the article say anything about taking guns away from hunters and law-abiding citizens. Yet to even question whether it should be so frickin' easy for a whacko like the Virginia Tech killer or the Columbine nutjobs to get guns provokes, without fail, a knee-jerk "They're trying to take my guns away!" response from the gun lobby. The fact is, if it weren't so easy to get guns, there would be fewer people killed by guns, plain and simple. And besides, who needs a semiautomatic weapon to kill a deer?
February 1, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Everyone stop and think about this rationally. Look at the title of the article - "SC is awash in guns" - Good, that's great! Even in high crime areas, the criminal element makes up a VERY small percentage of the overall population. If a state has a lot of guns out there, it means that the EXTREME majority of those guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. If an area only has "a few" guns out there, you can bet the farm, it's the criminals who have them, and the people are defenseless. The title of this article is comforting if you think of it that way. There is only one way to keep guns away from criminals; throw them in jail at the beginning of their criminal activity. No wrist-slapping.
February 1, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
greyrider, I believe that instead of Philadelphia being called "the city of brotherly love", San Francisco adopted that unofficial motto years ago. Another sign of the decline.
February 1, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
Before someone asks, "how do I know the extreme majority are in the hands of law-abiding citizens?" Easy, typical criminals do not "collect" guns. They want one or two handguns they can carry to use at will. Very few criminals (they do exist, but very few) own a lot of guns.
February 1, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kaptkarl (anonymous) says...
Newsless Courier take note. None of these comments above are from people who agree with your article. Starting from your banner headline "S.C. is 'awash in guns'" to the quote by Chief Zumalt, the article reeks of you liberal agenda of banning firearms. Try some balanced reporting for a change... you might increase circulation.
February 1, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paul (anonymous) says...
Can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule that arms are only to be held by a "well regulated militia" !
February 1, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jaysin (anonymous) says...
With so many guns in South Carolina, you would think that the criminals would be scared out of their minds? According to FBI statistics, South Carolina has 784 violent crimes per 100,000 people while Massachusetts has 458 per 100,000 people. Massachusetts the poster child for liberal, tax and spend politics and unnecessary regulations has a lower crime rate than South Carolina. When you compare gun laws in each state, the argument that many people on this board are touting becomes null and void. Massachusetts has tougher firearm trafficking, background check, child safety and military assault weapon laws, yet they have a lower violent crime rate. What gives? Obviously there are a variety of factors that weigh into these statistics, but the numbers don't lie. State after state with common sense gun laws, have lower crime rates than those with relaxed or no regulation. How can you argue with numbers? Hmmmm.
I still wonder why law abiding, patriot gun owners are so reluctant to have safe guards put in place? No one is suggesting that guns should be made illegal, but what folks are asking for is some common sense policy solutions. Having more guns on the streets and in the hands of citizens is certainly not the answer to the rising crime problem in South Carolina.
February 1, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jaysin (anonymous) says...
I think you are confusing my intent. South Carolina's problem is not necessarily guns, its violent crime. My argument is that guns don't prevent crime and when someone makes statements like all people should be armed and criminals will think twice about robbing you is absolutely crazy. Oh and there are alot of people with guns, illegal and legal in the State of South Carolina. Are you denying that?
To the writer that thinks this "Brady" group is crazy. This is precisely the attitude which prevents good public policy debate. Non gun owners chastizing gun owners and vice versa.
February 1, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jaysin (anonymous) says...
and people like ColdBeer. He is the reason why people think South Carolina is backward.
February 1, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jaysin (anonymous) says...
You want numbers on violent crime statistics, you got em'
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A000491...
February 1, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greyrider (anonymous) says...
My whole argument against the gun control crowd in reference to crime is that there is no "one stop" answer to crime. I agree that letting law abiding citizens own guns doesn't "solve" the crime problem all by itself. But taking them away doesn't solve it either. Crime is very complex. It is affected by morality, respect for one another, fear of reprisal by the police & courts, family upbringing, etc. I could go on all day. Here's where the "Brady" crowd goes way off course. There is no reason to have ANY laws in regards to rifles and shotguns. Even in today's violent culture the number of crimes committed with these types of weapons in so microscopic its ridiculous to even bring up the issue, and yet they want those banned as well. I can at least understand their attack on handguns. I disagree with it, but I understand it. But when they want to go after rifles and shotguns, they come across as nutcases.
February 1, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hairy1663 (anonymous) says...
Geography,race & the weather have more to do with violent crime statistics than firearms do, it's a social problem more than a gun problem. I just wish the same people were as inclined to start legislating morality as they are gun legislation. But Mrs. Evelyn Dolven from the bay area isn't about to start telling folks in her home state to control the entertainment industry & there glorification of violence.
February 1, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
JohnQ, LOL, I meant "queer" as in strange or odd. Get your mind out of the gutter, bo. You must be "silly".
I don't go to public bathrooms for any reason if I can help it, besides I'm not a male, or a lesbo.
February 1, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
www.disasters.com will give you the crime stats
February 1, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
My Mistake www.disastercenter.com
February 1, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
www.disastercenter.com/crime/ might be easier
February 1, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim2007/ind...
February 1, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
The gun control crowd does not want to solve the problems with guns and crime. If they did, they would work on those who use guns in committing a crime. Controling my guns does nothing to stop a criminal. They must be making a lot of money off their crusade.
February 1, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
waterboard (anonymous) says...
I think we need to contact Schuyler Kropf about doing some basic research before writing an article.
The Brady organization is NOT a credible source for factual information on firearms.
If one wants to reinforce their unfounded, irrational fear of firearms, sure, do the birds of a feather thing. However, if you want the Truth, try a source like Gary Kleck (Hint, Schuyler - Google is your friend!).
"If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective." -Ted Nugent
As for the state being "awash in guns", yep, it's pretty annoying, tripping over those firearms littering the sidewalks.
As for me and my house, we are prepared to repel boarders. My teenage daughter is quite proficient with handguns (shocking, eh?). =)
I just wish some of these feminized men would use that Y chromosome they were issued and man-up. Find a spine.
February 1, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
waterboard (anonymous) says...
Slight correction, greyrider-
Crime is not very complex.
It's quite simple.
There are people out there who are predators. They view other people as prey.
The question is how much power will we cede to the predators, or will we take the responsibility to defend our families and selves from those who behave like animals?
There is a good essay on the Net about Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs. A Google search will find it easily.
February 1, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offen...
February 1, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
AL-425.2,AS 688.0,AR 501.4,AK 551.6,CA 532.5,CO 391.6,CT280.8, DE 681.6, DC 1,508.4, FL 712.0, GA 471.0, HI 281.2, ID 247.2, IL 541.6 ,IN 314.8,IOWA 283.5,KS 425.0,KY 263.0, LA 697.8, ME 115.5, MD 678.6, MA 447.0, MI 562.4,MN 312.0 ,MISSISSIPPI 298.6,MISSOURI 545.6,MT 253.7,NE 281.8, NV 741.6, NH 138.7, NJ 351.6,NM 643.2,NY 434.9 NC 475.6, ND 127.9,OH 350.3, OK 497.4,OR 280.3,PA 439.4, PR227.3 RI 227.5,SC 765.5, SD 171.4,TN 760.2,TN 760.2,TX 516.3,UT 224.4,VT 136.6,VA 282.2, WA 345.9, WV 279.7 WI 284.0 WY 239.6 tHIS IS THE 2006 VIOLENT CRIME STATS PER 100,000 RESIDENTS
February 1, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
DORCHESTER COUNTY IS 542.8 PER 100,000 RESIDENTS
February 1, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Violent crime
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Agency Population Crime*
Berkeley County Sheriff's Office 91,655 691.7
Charleston City Police Department 106,307 946.3
Charleston County Sheriff's Office 80,507 1,070.7
Dorchester County Sheriff's Office 66,326 542.8
Goose Creek Police Department 32,688 235.6
Hanahan Police Department 13,558 663.8
Mount Pleasant Police Department 57,115 337.9
North Charleston Police Dept. 85,416 1,728.0
Summerville Police Department 34,706 380.3
*Violent crime rate per 100,000 people
Note: The first number indicates the population primarily served by that agency.
The second number reflects the violent crime rate per 100,000 population.
Source: http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/j...
Notice that the population served by the Charleston County Sheriff's Office (the unincorporated areas) is not that much larger than the population served by the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office. "When you subtract the population that is served by municipal police agencies, you find that Dorchester and Charleston Counties are similarly sized counties," according to Sheriff Ray Nash. "Yet we have far fewer deputies and 50% less violent crime!"
++tHIS WAS TAKEN FROM rE-ELECT nASH 2008 WEBSITE
February 1, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Conquer the Spirit of Judging! Jan 31, '08 4:14 AM
by Ralph for everyone
Not long ago, I was meeting with a 19-year-old girl who had recently returned to the Lord after a time of tragic rebellion. I asked her about the counselors who tried to help her before she decided to go her own way.
When I mentioned the name of one of her counselors, she exclaimed, "I had a hard time with her, because whenever she looked at me I sensed a judgmental spirit." I asked her how she could tell simply from a look whether or not someone was judging her. She said, "The way she looked at me made me feel that she was evaluating my dress and appearance and wanting me to conform to her standards."
This testimony illustrates a common pitfall of those who try to help others by using personal authority rather than positional authority. A counselor must be careful to communicate God's principles, rather than his own personal standards, if he is to be effective. Understanding the difference between positional authority and personal authority is at the heart of determining whether someone is judging or discerning how to help another person.
Personal authority commands, "You must follow my rules." Positional authority appeals, "You must follow God's rules."
Sheriff Ray Nash has given Police Dynamics Seminars throughout the world. He explains how "personal authority" is often at the root of police brutality. When a police officer feels that a person is violating "his" rules, he loses sight of the fact that his authority is limited to enforcing the laws of those whom he represents.
This distinction between personal authority and positional authority is also at the heart of the warnings we read in James. One who judges has usurped God's authority and is using it in a personal way. "Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" (See James 4:1112.)
When we are more concerned with the outward reformation of a person, rather than his heart condition before God, we are not showing genuine love.
When we see people whose dress or appearance is immodest, what is our immediate concern? Do we want to help them conform to a more appropriate style of dress or do we use those outward indicators as motivations to pray for their inward walks with the Lord, and their relationships with parents and others whom God has placed in their lives?
Looking past the appearance to the heart takes training, because "man looketh on the outward appearance" (I Samuel 16:7). To conquer a judgmental spirit, we must learn to see as God sees and look on the heart. Let's ask God to help us see the true needs of people and purpose to show them His genuine love.
Through Christ our Lord,
Bill Gothard
February 1, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Leave it to ChrisPia to find a way to drag a Ray Nash post into this thread.
Man ChrisPia, you really need to get a grip and chill out on Nash. Must be eating a hole in your gut! You find a way in just about any article to bring Ray Nash into it.
He is probably responsible for bringing Global Warming to Dorchester County also I bet?
February 1, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kaptkarl (anonymous) says...
GUN CONTROL MEANS HITTING YOUR TARGET!
February 1, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
You got it right kaptkarl....
Means using both hands with good trigger control...
February 1, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carlosthedwarf (anonymous) says...
This gun control debate has been going on for almost 30 years. I don't even own a gun, but I don't believe gun control is the solution. You can put all sorts of limits and restrictions on guns, but people with mal intent will still find a way to get them. Because the fact is that most criminals steal guns. And even if they didn't have a gun to use they would find some other weapon.
Violent behavior in criminals isn't limited to guns and rifles. The 9/11 terrorists murdered people with boxcutters. Are we supposed to have a 5 day waiting period for boxcutters? No, of course not. Because violent criminals will harm someone with or without a weapon.
I'm in favor of an instant background check that is done electronically for someone who purchases a handgun, but any waiting period is a waste of time. Most of the people who support gun control have their hearts in the right place, but their logic is flawed because the fact is that gun control does not deter crime.
February 1, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/e...
February 1, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
http://sabretactical.com/Training_Pro...
February 1, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedparents08 (anonymous) says...
people zumalt is right. illegal gun interaction. he should have been working with sled and the FBI ATF ALREADY. gangs are here. that poor woman on feb 12th was murdered. 5 shots in her!!!that sounds like 5 guys dressed all in dark clothes. rumors say it was her selling her own jewelry for money to buy own medication.. maybe they wanted her medication..from cvs..who knows..outlaw knives, ropes,autos, and vicious hands first...then guns..criminals don't buy guns at the gun store. just from creepy criminals..
February 1, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
waterboard (anonymous) says...
I have to commend the majority of posters here for their reasoned approach to the topic.
After all, if banning guns was the answer, Washington, DC, would be the safest place to live.
In the end, I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than catch a ride with Ted Kennedy.
February 1, 2008 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Bring a vest LOL
February 1, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
concernedparents08 (anonymous) says...
how many dirty cops and agents have illegal guns they stole from the victims, homeowners, sites,evidence etc the dirty cops are always robbing the dead and injured. They muddy the story to make the victims seem to be evil. so they steal their loot and do not really give a crap about criminals slipping around in your area..or should i say skipping around. they are looking (. (scared and foolish(lawmen)))no check and balance..stop burying your head in the sand get legislation of your own..honest cops,agents ,and brave ones.we love you!!
February 1, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lexylady (anonymous) says...
ChrisPia
Either we are for Sheriff Nash or we are against him. With our wit and guns and s__t. Go he to the incredible Sheriff.
February 1, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Are you dating Doug Huffman? LOL
February 1, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lexylady (anonymous) says...
No, I have lost all of my wit; and I can't find my guns!!!!!
Doug has driven me crazy....
February 1, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
Have a great weekend all Be safe!
February 1, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RationalJohn (anonymous) says...
The Brady Campaign is to gun ownership and the second amemdment as PETA was to Mepkin Abbey eggs; e.g. help the criminals as the chickens!!!
February 1, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tarj (anonymous) says...
Let me start by saying what a load of crap. If you do not like SC the way it is, no one is keeping you here and frankly, we do not want you here anyway!
More Gun dealers than McDonald's? At least make the lies believable! Who would believe this drivel? Oh yeah, left wing "Nut-Jobs!"
I will try to keep this short so people will actually read it.
A few years ago I could have cared less if people could have guns. Everyone in my family has advanced martial arts training. Well, not too long ago I had my eyes opened to the need for law abiding citizens to possess guns. If nothing else opens your eyes, the terrorist threat should do it.
I could go on and on but there is no need. A web site called America's Majority (http://americasmajority.org) has posted something I wrote called "The People" that gets into the constitution and the right to bear arms. America's Majority also has an alert about the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment. They also have a book by the national chairman available that touches on gun "control" and other important topics. It is called "Malice Cloaked in Liberty" and exposes a lot of liberal hidden agendas.
Here it is in a nut shell. If you liberal wack-o's are too stupid to see the importance of owning guns, along with other freedoms that you wish to limit, you are frankly to stupid to call yourselves Americans. Why do you nuts not just find somewhere else in this world that follows your beliefs and move there? We do not want or need your crazy ideas here. That goes for guns control nuts, PETA, Gore following loons, and the rest of you insane oafs.
For more info go to:
I do not represent America's Majority and do not claim to. They posted a couple of articles I have written(I have more on my personal site) but my opinions may or may not always match theirs. They are a Public Service Organization based in North Charleston, SC. Check them out for yourselves, submit your opinions and they may post it as well.
As for Evelyn Dolven, why not march back to California or further? You are not welcome here anymore!
February 3, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
