|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Yeah, remarkable, isn't it? There are over 300 million civilian firearms in the USA, so out of all the nations on Earth American citizens should be the most securely protected against being shot. Why doesn't it work out like that? It's a mystery. Do you have the answer to this mystery? Seems to me it has to be that people don't CARRY their guns because we're used to feeling safe. {AbE: OR because there are laws against it, such as apparently was the case around this school, as crashfrog pointed out} And these murders do seem to occur in gun controlled areas, such as that theater where a shooting occurred not long ago, in a totally gun free area. Just a couple of armed people in the audience might have stopped that murder spree in its tracks. And this horrible shooting today at the school somebody here pointed out is an area where people are generally underarmed compared to the rest of the nation. Here we have this right, which was really regarded as a duty in earlier days, to be armed for our own protection and the protection of our neighbors, and we aren't using it. Seen this video about an armed 71 year old man who stopped an armed robbery at an internet cafe in Florida last summer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBYSau64LOc Edited by Faith, : To add statement about laws against carrying guns Edited by Faith, : change phrase to "gun free"He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
It seems that the guns he used to kill his mother, the children and teachers, belonged to his mother. So as far this particular tragedy is concerned, it's safe to say that her gun ownership did not help her defend herself or anybody else. In fact we can demonstrate the opposite.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They were away from the school, where gun control laws said they had to be. Under Connecticut law it's illegal to carry a gun near a school. I'm not trying to say that more guns would have made the situation better, I'm just answering your question. Where were all the people who could have used their legal guns to stop this guy? They were exactly where you said you they had to be - far away from the school. Thank you for that information. I'd argue that if we were better educated about these things, and the people who possess guns were informed and trained and expected to carry them in more ordinary situations than people now think necessary, that it COULD have definitely made the situation better. it could have stopped this murder spree cold. Yes it could have.
I mean, all of you who think this tragedy justifies more strict gun control need to grapple with the fact that this tragedy happened in the state with the second-strictest gun control laws in America; the state with the fourth-lowest rate of gun ownership; the state with no "shall-issue" concealed-carry law; the state where assault rifles are banned. Yes, exactly.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
True, but if others involved with the school, parents or teachers or whatever, were known to be armed and ready to defend the place, it is possible this guy wouldn't have risked it at all, but if he did he might have been stopped before he was able to kill anybody.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I happen to own quite a few guns, yet I have not used them in a violent manner. I am always armed, yet I have never hard to use a gun in a violent manner. Then you don't need to be armed. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: True, but if others involved with the school, parents or teachers or whatever, were known to be armed and ready to defend the place, it is possible this guy wouldn't have risked it at all, but if he did he might have been stopped before he was able to kill anybody This is a criminally insane idea. Do you actually think that arming your entire society will reduce deaths by guns, I mean really? How is it that the rest of the civilised world manages without this need for gun ownership and has a lower incident of shootings? The maniac knows that he is going out to kill people, has planned it, is usually armed to the teeth and quite prepared kill. Your armed teachers and passers by have no idea it's going to happen, have limited capability to stop it even if armed and are likely to cause even more damage in the process of trying. And how on earth does a Christian think this way? It's the exact opposite of WWJD.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: True, but if others involved with the school, parents or teachers or whatever, were known to be armed and ready to defend the place, it is possible this guy wouldn't have risked it at all, but if he did he might have been stopped before he was able to kill anybody. I had to read this twice to be sure I understood what you were saying. You're talking about the armed defense of childrens' schools. Think about what that says about your society.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
I had to read this twice to be sure I understood what you were saying. You're talking about the armed defense of childrens' schools. Think about what that says about your society. It says no more than this thread is about, that is unfortunately by now becoming almost a typical occurrence, that these crazy people are so often committing mass murders and that we need a way to bring this craziness to a stop. Which is what an armed citizenry SHOULD be good for. Gun control is NOT going to stop this. Again, consider the fact that these murders have most recently occurred where gun control is the strictest. It's common sense to provide for such protections when there is a threat to the public safety for whatever reason. Go read that list of quotes I posted from the founders. The whole point of an armed citizenry is protection against threats to the people, and this stuff we've been seeing so much of is a form of terrorism it seems to me. He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kairyu Member (Idle past 204 days) Posts: 162 From: netherlands Joined: |
I always am noting the parallel between reading the bible literally, and trying to figure out what the founders wanted with everything. The constitution is brought up as a unchanging pillar of justice again and again.
This is not rational. A few rights like freedom of speech are no-brainers for the western world, and slowly increasing globally. But a lot of things are related to the sentiments of the time. I don't believe equal gender rights, or a ban on owing a slave were included. It's important in history, and there's genuine reason to celebrate it. But the founders are long gone. Laws should be made by the current living generation. A good constitution has a few barriers in place to prevent direct abuse. We go with needing a 2/3 majority that needs to be passed again 2/3 after the next election. But aside from that, most of the laws are neutral core rights. Some of them frequently clash. But most importantly, we focus or discussion mosty on the present age. You may take note of the founders, but why not make up your own path?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith, the rest of the civilised world operates to different codes and it works better. You way can only make it worse.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is a criminally insane idea. I hope you understand that you are calling all those venerable men of our founding generation I quoted earlier on this subject "criminally insane." You might benefit from rereading those quotes if you read them at all, and that article I also posted there. Here's the link: EvC Forum: Gun Control Again
Do you actually think that arming your entire society will reduce deaths by guns, The founders most definitely did. ALL the citizens are even considered to have the DUTY to be armed and trained to deal with threats to the nation. Since just about everybody WAS armed in those days and used to using their weapons, that may explain why they may not have had criminal actions at the forefront of their concerns as we do today, but surely the same logic applies.
I mean really? How is it that the rest of the civilised world manages without this need for gun ownership and has a lower incident of shootings? I think that may be just a bit of an exaggeration there. But mostly it's that you just haven't yet had the kind of threat that you won't be able to deal with when it does happen. When it does happen you won't be prepared, you'll be sitting ducks. Hitler was able to make use of the strict gun laws in Germany, which he strengthened, to victimize the Jews, and all the more so in Eastern Europe. You might ponder this article:Did Hitler ban gun ownership? - The Straight Dope The guy is quite credible since he starts out debunking a common claim that Hitler "first took away guns so he could victimize the people," but then he has to recognize that Hitler WAS able to take advantage of the strict gun laws already in existence, which deprived the Jews of any effective way to defend themselves. He ends up minimizing the effect of the gun restrictions but I wouldn't myself. I'd say if you are a vulnerable and hated minority the more guns you can get your hands on the safer you may be.
Hitler didn't need to impose gun control because gun laws were already in effect (ironically, those original laws were in part designed to disarm the Nazis). Gun control helped the Nazis keep weapons out of the hands of their enemies, but as Cramer notes, it wasn't a major factor in Hitler's success. That said, and a bit tangential to this question (but I'd hate to leave something out AGAIN), Cramer says the Nazis did benefit significantly from gun control in Eastern Europe in terms of "the inability of their victims to fight back." He cites The Holocaust, a book by Leni Yahil (translated by Ina Friedman and Haya Galai, Oxford University Press, 1990), which has a chapter discussing armed resistance by Jews, including rebellions with just a few firearms and a lot of courage. In addition, he talks about Israel Guttman's book, Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which discusses the difficulty the Jews faced in obtaining weapons. Cramer believes that "if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust." I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly difficult to have an uprising without weapons. Well, I'd go that far.
Tangle writes: The maniac knows that he is going out to kill people, has planned it, is usually armed to the teeth and quite prepared kill. Your armed teachers and passers by have no idea it's going to happen, have limited capability to stop it even if armed and are likely to cause even more damage in the process of trying. Limited, yes, but not totally incapable. It only takes a few seconds to recognize the threat and a few more seconds to do something to try to take the guy down. The more people in a position to take him down the better in my humble opinion. How could there be worse damage than killing over 20 school children? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : to add linkHe who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I always am noting the parallel between reading the bible literally, and trying to figure out what the founders wanted with everything. The constitution is brought up as a unchanging pillar of justice again and again. The Constitution provides MEANS for changing it, it's NOT regarded as an "unchanging pillar of justice" for that reason, but it IS considered to have been an incredibly wise document that we would be crazy to disregard. But that is what is happening these days, thanks to the kind of thinking you are exhibiting here, which is an excuse to "reinterpret" it without regard to its original intent, or ignore it completely according to the whims of the current Supreme Court. That is a recipe for destruction of the nation if there ever was one and we're well down that path already.
This is not rational. All I can do is groan. It's YOUR position that's not rational.
A few rights like freedom of speech are no-brainers for the western world, and slowly increasing globally. But a lot of things are related to the sentiments of the time. \ Are you in a position to make that decision? Are you expert in Constitutional law? But the most important answer to you is IN THAT CASE LET IT BE CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE LAWS GIVEN FOR CHANGING IT. I certainly wouldn't want YOU in charge of making those decisions.
I don't believe equal gender rights, or a ban on owing a slave were included. THOSE WERE CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE LAW i'M REFERRING TO, IT WAS DONE IN AN ORDERLY AND LAWFUL FASHION, NOT THROUGH THE WHIMS OF A politically motivated Supreme Court.
It's important in history, and there's genuine reason to celebrate it. But the founders are long gone. Laws should be made by the current living generation. IN AN ORDERLY AND LAWFUL WAY, not by a politically motivated Supreme Court.
A good constitution has a few barriers in place to prevent direct abuse. We go with needing a 2/3 majority that needs to be passed again 2/3 after the next election. But aside from that, most of the laws are neutral core rights. Some of them frequently clash. But most importantly, we focus or discussion mosty on the present age. You may take note of the founders, but why not make up your own path? Well, we do, for better or worse. But there's a reason to be cautious about this, because the ways those founders were wise was in their knowledge of history and the tendency to tyranny of kihgs and governemtns. They understood history in a way this generation has utterly lost. I'm sure you've heard that line about being condemned to repeat it? I'd rather not, thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: I hope you understand that you are calling all those venerable men of our founding generation I quoted earlier on this subject "criminally insane." You might benefit from rereading those quotes if you read them at all, and that article I also posted there. What you're doing Faith, is finding yet another book to interpret the way you need to and put your full trust in whilst ignoring reality. First it's "my interpretation of the bible is true and if you find anything that contradicts it, then it's wrong", now "it's the Founding Fathers were right and if anything contradicts them, it's wrong" Both books were written by human beings, both are open to misinterpretation and both need to be taken with a bloody great pinch of salt when they are obviously wrong.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
It's time for the gun nuts to give up their toys, time for guns to go.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Rahvin,
Except that this would do nothing for shootings where a legally owned firearm is taken by an unauthorized individual for a rampage, like is the case in most school shootings. Accountability does nothing for murder-suicides, either. It's a good idea, but it would require a lot of bureaucracy for little reward. Make it illegal to own ammunition, and gun collectors can have their collections. Require a license and a special permit to posses up to 6 bullets (with background checks & make sure no-ones doubling up) and you can go hunting or have the illusion of "self-protection" ... not a complete solution, but better than now. Yes people will still be killed, but harder to go on a rampage with only 6 shots. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024