Summations Only

That's fine, Heathen, I was answering RAZD's list of information which included the easy availability of guns to criminals and responding that tightening laws on criminals is clearly a good idea, however that can be done.I was not addressing the Connecticut situation or similar occurrences at that time which I'd addressed before as being best dealt with by installing solme sort of security measures, whether arming personnel or hiring guards. It's practical. I didn't claim that better laws against criminals would have stopped Lanza. This is another subject.The problem is that criminals manage to get hold of weapons no matter what laws are in place and since by definition they ignore laws anyway we need COUNTERFORCE to deal with them. And I do believe that a strong counterforce also has deterrent effect. I do beliieve that these mass murderers would very likely not have risked it in any situation where they knew there could be guns aimed at them.My main concern on this whole thread is the emotional wave of opinion that always follows on a horrific tragedy that targets all gun owners, the vast majority of whom are good law abiding citizens. That's an irrational response aimed at depriving us of the second amendment security we are supposed to be able to count on.

I tend to agree with you about those things, Kofh, I just keep hoping that it's still possible to wake some people up to the situation that's being created in our countries. It may be a lost cause, we deserve God's judgment for all those things you've listed and it looks to me like we're getting it, even in the form of this irrational reaction to this tragedy that is going to deprive us of what little security we have left.I realize that what's called for in that case is a return to God and that's not going to happen unless He has extraordinary mercy on us, but without that all the efforts to talk about this stuff from a strictly societal point of view are probably futile. Nevertheless it still seems worth a try.Got to add, though, that after seeing some of your posts involving theology that I don't see much help coming from your side of things. You embrace apostasies as if they were Christian. That's just another way the west is being destroyed -- in fact it's probably THE reason God is judging us. You can't embrace false gods and expect blessing from the true God. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Trained gun owners do not get into "gunfights" and that's a ridiculous straw man. The problem was that guns were NOT present at all except in the hands of the murderer. THAT is the problem. You wiill NOT solve THAT problem by removing MORE guns from the people who SHOULD have them. You'll just add to the problem that allows a Lanza to commit horrific murders. That seems so obvious to me that I can hardly make sense of all this screaming about taking away people's guns. The problem in Connecticut and in Aurora was that GUNS WERE PROHIBITED. What can't you guys get about this? The prohibitions are the problem but that's what you want more of! Nobody is a criminal until he does something criminal for pete's sake. Lanza became a criminal. No, you can't prevent people who haven't shown criminal tendencies from obtaining guns, didn't I say that? You can only be armed yourself as a deterrent and a protection against them. I suppose even a school principal COULD decide to shoot up her school and become a criminal too, but that's such an improbable scenario I can't even give it a second thought. Nonsense, it would make him think twice about shooting up a school. And if he did get that far an armed teacher, principal or security guard could have taken him down with one well aimed shot. We're not talking shootouts and escalation. You people have no idea what you are talking about. Oddly enough the threat of death DOES act as a deterrent. They want to kill people and dying is going to prevent them from doing that. The ones who are bent on criminal behavior, even formerly mild mannered good citizens will always be able to get the weapons to do it with. Depriving millions of good citizens of their guns is an absolutely ridiculous solution to this problem.I doubt that a lone murderers would bother with a plan to disable a guard, but that is a reason to have some teachers or the principal armed.

The video I mentioned to you interviews some police in the UK about how they've had to arm themselves with more high powered weapons because of the gun ban. It would be nice not to have to have a totally armed police force. The unarmed English "bobbies" were always a very attractive idea. Times have changed. Fine if you can still get away with an unarmed police force but it sounds like you can't any more. Actually I'm not particularly in favor of arming police and armies, because they are the ones who can become agents of tyranny against the people. The idea of an armed citizenry is what I've been defending, and the messages I recommended that you read are all about that. No. See above. Teachers are citizens, police are run by the state, I'm for arming citizens, not so much agents of the state although that too does seem necessary these days. The two societies have different kinds of problems, different demographics, different situations. Sort through all that before making a comparison. Did you WATCH the video? I found it on You Tube. Those ARE British people being interviewed, people who had their guns taken away from them back in 1997. Lucky you. I still haven't seen any statistics that I feel I can trust. They don't make necessary distinctions, no idea who did what to whom or why, and so on, and when I do take somebody's statistics straight, which happened yesterday with something Tangle posted, then people start yelling at me because I took them straight. So I don't trust yours either as long as I don't know how to interpret them. Except to say lucky you that you don't have a lot of homicides but apparently you do now have a lot of home invasiions because guns have been taken away. That doesn't persuade me of anything I'm afraid. They just don't grasp the reason for citizen gun ownership and haven't yet encountered the real-life reasons for its necessity. But from here it looks like you're all being set up for the very tyrannies that gun rights are necessary to prevent. Hasn't happened yet, but it's inevitable eventually I'm afraid.

I found evidence against yours, it isn't false just because I'm the one who found it. It contributes to my doubt about all the statistics here. You also hold different ideas about what you want to accomplish than I do. I'm aghast at ANY kind of rise in crime from gun bans, you seem to think that's all fine as long as deaths go down. And nobody so far has given statistics that show the CAUSE of the deaths in any of the cases, which is crucial information. But I'm not for exchanging lower death rates for higher home invasions or other crimes anyway. Crime is crime. We need a way to protect our schools, we don't need our guns taken away. Nobody seems to care what the founders had to say about the necessity of the Second Amendment because of the real threat of government and other forms of tyranny against the people, but THAT's the bottom line for me.

No, that refrain about having to equal modern armies is silly. I'm for very modest weapons when it comes to citizen ownership, handguns, rifles. If the army decides to make war on us we won't be able to do much, but something is better than nothing in my opinion.

One purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect your house and family from criminals. That was discussed by the founders too as part of the provision.

I'd rather not have to shoot your kid at all. Keep your kid away from my car and there's no problem. Tell him I have a gun, that should work.

I believe I already answered you: SOME ability to resist is better than none. It's still about resisting tyranny and simple weapons can go a long way.

That sheet of statistics you supplied had every kind of crime jumbled up in one number and when I referred to it as evidence that crime had risen everybody jumped on me for the imprecision of YOUR statistic. That's not exactly reporting murder with precision.The video that interviewed the UK citizens whose guns had been stolen from them showed that home invasions had increased as a result. I'm not interested in comparisons between the UK and the US, I'm interested in the fact that the gun ban caused crime to go up in the UK.

I haven't said anything about camps. I think you're talking about Kofh. That WOULD cdertainly be tyranny though. Duh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I MIGHT, I MIGHT NOT. I HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE SITUATION. I stated the Second Amendment principle, I support the principle, there's a reason we have the Second Amendment, to give us security against ALL KINDS OF TYRANNIES AND PREDATIONS, including CRIME, house invasion, government roundjups, gthe works. Some situations are obviously going to be beyond small arms resistance. Good grief, stop pushing the envelope here.And yes, if a kid knows the car owner is armed the kid will leave the car alone. Two plus two is four.But how very odd that this parent is requring me to be protecting his kid from harm during a criminal act as if it's just normal to expect a kid to commit car theft and and all he cares about is that the kid not be hurt and not taking responsibility that he raised a criminal. Things are truly upside down and backwards these days.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Get your statistics clear in the first place.

After we're already in camps I just advocate prayer.

You are acting as if this kid must INEVITABLY try to steal a car, so that means if I'm going to defend my car he's going to INEVITABLY get shot. JUST TEACH HIM NOT TO STEAL!If criminals get caught in the act ---, I'm talking CRIMINALS, GROWNUPS CAUGHT IN A CRIMINAL ACT, I'm not talking children in candy stores, I'm not talking kids chasing a soccer ball of all the crazy ideas -- people ought to have the right to defend themselves AND their property.If people with criminal intent are deterred by the threat of being shot, then they won't be shot. Seems logical to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.