Summations Only

When people offer themselves as an example it's only useful if they're typical. Could you maybe consider the questions again but for yourself substitute a normal person?--Percy

Hi Percy, But Percy you gave the results of what would happen to a normal person.You then asked what I would do.There is a school that will teach anybody how to protect themselves in any situation. It is pretty expensive but a great insurance policy.
It is called Front Sight. Firearm Training Courses: Gun TrainingI am sure there are others but this one is the best in my opinion.God Bless,

Hi RAZD, I was counting Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.Because in my opinion by the time there could be a constitutional convention there would be an executive order making them a State. They both have representatives in the House already, their voting is very limited.All the citizens in Puerto Rico are American citizens and all the citizens of American Somoa are American Nationals, but everyone that has one American parent are American citizens.If there was no executive order there would only be 50 which would only require 38 to change the Constitution.God Bless,

Is that an informed opinion? What about Guam? or The Virgin Islands? There are actually five territories with representatives in Congress. Plus the District of Columbia.The power to admit states to the union is given to Congress in Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution. The president cannot grant statehood via executive order. The representatives are non-voting.When you divided 52 in half to obtain 21 what were you thinking?

Searching for discussions of Christian views of gun rights I came across one pastor who discusses an interesting passage in Exodus 22 that defines when lethal force may or may not be used. If a homeowner confronts an intruder at night and kills him he is considered innocent of murder, but if he kills an intruder during the day he is considered guilty of murder. Apparently the idea is that at night you may assume a more dangerous motivation on the part of the intruder, but during the day he's probably just a thief.I then went to Blue Letter Bible and looked up that verse and found all the usual commentaries agreeing with this pastor's assessment.So those who have been discussed here who killed intruders in daylight are considered guilty of murder according to the Bible.Obviously there are going to be plenty of unique situations that have to be thought through such as the woman crouching in the crawl space with her children. It was daylight but the man seemed to be looking for her and not just something to steal.The article goes on to discuss other Biblical references such as Jesus' telling the disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword, and he interprets Jesus' saying "it is enough" to refer to the number of swords.Overall I think it's a reasonable discussion that Christians should take seriously. In general self defense is permitted, but restraint is strongly recommended.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is why modern secular law is necessary - to prevent the literalists interpreting their ancient books to suit whatever actions they prefer.The law deal with intent. To commit most crimes, you must have some form of intent and be capable of knowing wrong from right. It does not work in simplistic black and white terms - like whether it's night or day.If a 9 year old child enters your house after dark should you shoot him? If a drunk wonders in and fall asleep on your couch?It's light for months at a time in some parts of the world does that mean I can break in and steal whilst the owners are asleep with impunity?The legal concept of reasonable force means that the home owner is allowed to take proportionate actions to protect his property and his person - it doesn't allow him to shoot dead an intruder simply because it's dark outside. We've moved on, thank God.

You are to understand the Biblical teachings in terms of their spirit and not the letter, as Jesus taught.The principle in this case is apparently what the intent of the intruder is, which I already said and is made clear in the article linked. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I guess I should have been more clear. When I asked what "you" would do I meant it in the sense of a normal, typical person. It doesn't matter whether you're the second coming of James Bond or just have delusions, neither you individually nor the anecdotal stories you keep citing have much relevance. I'm describing what is true statistically at the national level.So when I said earlier things like, "The criminal picks the time and place, you don't," I didn't mean you personally. When I asked what you would do in the case of the list of murder circumstances I was hoping you would put yourself in the shoes of a normal person. Maybe you have superhuman powers of observation and are eternally vigilant, but that's no help to the rest of us.The point is that a normal person who is out and about while carrying or is in his home that has a gun somewhere will not be able to use that gun to defend himself against someone intent upon murder. That's what these examples from the news illustrate:

• Man shot and killed when he answered a knock at his door.
• Man followed to parking garage and shot in torso.
• Man shot by hitman while sitting in taxi.
• Woman shot in head while getting out of her car.

A person just going about his daily life never knows the when or where of a criminal attack, and when the goal is murder there's no time since no one's asking you for your wallet or where the safe is. No one answering the door knows what a criminal looks like. No one suspects that some other person in a parking garage is going to shoot them. No one sitting in a taxi examines every single passerby to see if they're about to pull a gun. No one exiting their car first looks in all directions to make sure there's no one suspicious nearby as they exit.That's why it's a myth that guns are of much use against a criminal bent upon murder. Guns cause murders to a much greater degree than they prevent them, and as has been commented in this thread a number of times, the irony is that many people intent on increasing their safety are actually placing themselves in greater danger.--Percy

The addendum to this argument is that when you can use a gun, you don't need it. A man stealing your wallet or safe or TV is not trying to kill you, so you don't need to resort to deadly force as your life is not in immanent danger. When your life is in immanent danger...you won't have the opportunity to retrieve and use a gun in nearly every circumstance. So why have a gun?

Exactly. I think that's been mentioned before, but it definitely bears repeating.Yet another addendum would be to draw attention to the living hell that ICANT's paranoia has drawn him into. I wasn't trying to pry into his personal life, but he chose to brag that he always checks who's at the door, he remains aware of all around him at all times so he knows when he's being followed or when someone somewhere nearby might be pulling a gun on him, he has multiple weapons in the house that all residents are expert in (which I assume means at least weekly trips to the target range), and no one could burst down his front door "without looking down the barrel of a Ruger 44 magnum" which I guess means that when he's home he's sitting in a chair facing the front door holding his loaded armor piercing Ruger 44 magnum.Sounds like an incredibly unpleasant way to live. Meanwhile I'm lying on my back in the park in shorts and t-shirt (which of course those carrying concealed can't do) watching the clouds go by with not a worry in the world (though not at this particular time of year, and actually I do have worries, but they aren't about being robbed or murdered).I can't associate any credibility with those in the gun crowd who keep trying to downplay the dangers of gun ownership. To have any credibility they should be saying something like, "Before you purchase a firearm be sure you're prepared for a dramatic lifestyle change. As long as that gun is in you home or on your person you must do all that is necessary to maintain a high state of proficiency in the care, use and storage of the firearm. This will require at least a couple hours of your free time every week, it could require physical changes to your domicile, and you will have to remain eternally vigilant against the possibility of unauthorized access. Remember, if that gun is ever used in an unjustifiable homicide that it is *your* fault."--Percy

I would also add - and have been mulling over a proper approach to this for awhile but haven't hit the right key yet - that a society with guns as part of its normal everyday life must be affected psychologically as a whole by them.It's rather hard to describe the culture shock of finding them on sale in a supermarket when you come from a society where guns are regarded as rare and dangerous objects to be avoided and treated with extreme caution.Normalising guns in a society must have an effect and I can't imagine it's a good one.

Odd, but the presence of guns in my environment has never been the subject of a second thought until people started making a big fuss about taking them away. I think this is just your own lack of familiarity with them talking.It's like living in Nevada where slot machines are in every grocery store, which does shock people unfamiliar with them, but if you live here and you don't gamble you don't even notice them.

Somebody just sent this to me:

Yes, Faith, that's rather my point. Crazy and damaging things have been normalised.

I'd agree in the case of gambling, but not in the case of guns. Your shock is just your silly shock.