Summations Only

Hope you don't mind if I draw a parallel. To be responsible drivers people would have to understand the capability of their cars. Judging by the typical driver on my way to work, I think most of them do not. So we have regulations for drivers and cars. Drivers must be tested and licensed (which doesn't seem to do much good), and cars must follow safety and pollution standards (which seems to do a great deal of good).If guns had seen the same improvements as automobiles over the past century it would be impossible for children or criminals or the insane to wreak immeasurable havoc with them. It is illegal now to sell new cars in this country with the safety features of a Model-T. Why is it still legal to sell a new Colt 45 with no more safety features than it had in 1873?--Percy

I think you have a point Ringo but mostly I think Faith is right: The gun owners in the US are mostly as law abiding as any of us. ( I do speed a little when driving). They also are generally as responsible as the rest of us. Do we understand, really, what our car can do?The problem is that many of those responsible, law abiding gun-owners accidentally kill and injure innocent people.I'll hope that I can be lazy and let Percy drag out the actual facts again but what I seem to recall from before is that if you are a responsible, law abiding gun owner then you are not increasing your safety in any useful way and in fact are putting your life and the life of your family in greater danger than if you didn't have a gun.This, I think, even applies in the gun soaked US where someone might show up with a gun. Here, I'd be even more crazy to have a gun around when I can have reasonable assurance that there isn't one within blocks of me.

How odd that the God I believe in inspired all the legal improvements in Western Civilization over the last two thousand years, was the inspiration for all the freedoms. Yeah, I know, you dispute that. HBD you pretend to be a Christian but hate the God Christianity worships. Since everything I say about what I believe, which is nothing but traditional Christianity back to the beginning, provokes such hatred of God, best I say no more. I'm very sorry I didn't take my own advice and leave Calvinism alone.One thing you cannot say, however, is that Christianity, Protestant style, Calvinist style, has any ambition to run the world, or any program of murdering people who disagree with us, or a policy of lying to make you think we don't. Roman Catholicism does, still does despite their image as little lambs these days, and Islam does.I said what I said about American gun owners being responsible law-abiding citizens in answer to Ringo's accusation that gun owners are all crazy. Theodoric decided to make it the basis for an irrelevant accusation about Islam. I assume most people agree about American gun owners, but Ringo needed to be answered.I don't know where Theodoric gets the idea that I oppose regulating guns which he's said a number of times now. I probably said something somewhere about opposing some kinds of regulations but I don't remember now, but as a blanket statement, no, I do not oppose regulating guns. Some people should not have guns, and I believe all gun owners should be well trained. I can't imagine that grandmother who shot her grandson in the dark had had much training. Or somebody should have found out that she was nervous and prone to impulsive actions and either needed to be trained out of that or not permitted to have a gun. Something along those lines might have prevented her from doing such a foolish thing.It keeps being said that some huge number of innocent people are being killed by guns in this country. "Love affair with violence." I don't see it. I don't see the statistics proving any of this. They generally don't take all the variety of situations into account, they often really don't discriminate between innocents and criminals, and they don't reflect the occasions when guns were used successfully to ward off criminal activity. It's not that I'm opposed to doing whatever is necessary or possible to improve safety, but I don't trust the gun control people to have a clearheaded rational understanding of all the variables. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Because of the American gun mentality that is still in 1883.To illustrate here is a quote from Sam Colt: The good people in this world are very far from being satisfied with each other and my arms are the best peacemaker.

​

Samuel Colt, 1852

WHAT?In making a judgment about Islam I am NOT judging the individual members. That is what is wrong for starters in what Theodoric was saying. I am judging ISLAM. He managed to "study" it but miss its "holy" aim of taking the world for Allah by whatever means necessary. There are plenty of quiet law-abiding Muslims, some of them because they don't really know what their religion teaches, but some because they do understand the strategy that has been spoken by many Muslim leaders over decades, of taking the world for Allah WHEN THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO. And that until then it is GOOD to lie about such things to the infidels and pretend to go along with their ways. This IS Islamic doctrine.And what's "senseless" here is accusing me of hypocrisy in making the perfectly true and innocent statement about American gun owners, because I don't share Theodoric's politically correct understanding of Islam. Political Correctness does the wrong thing again. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Could you talk about Islam somewhere else?--Percy

Sure, if you'll apologize for continuing the discussion here yourself.

You have your own reality. Could you at least get on topic please?--Percy

How does the fact most gun owners are law abiding invalidate the need for sensible gun laws?

quote:

---

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments composing the Bill of Rights.

---

SourceI would find it interesting, for someone in Congress to introduce a bill defining "Arms" (per the 2nd Amendment) as being weaponry as it existed in 1791.How could such be unconstitutional? At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, that's what "arms" were.Moose

Who said it did?

Most Car drivers are perfectly law abiding, but there are still APPROPRIATE laws in place to control
-who can drive.
-What vehicles can be driven on a public road
-Where a vehicle can be driven
-how road worthy a vehicle must be before it is drivenIt genuinely boggles my mind that, in the US at least, you must pass a driving test before getting behind a wheel. but you can pick up a gun having never held one before.
Bonkers.

For what it's worth: Message 2887Message 2888Adminnemooseus

But why are you arguing with me about the need for laws regulating guns? Where have I said I oppose that? It's possible, I suppose, that I said something somewhere that sounds like I oppose it though I don't remember saying it and nobody has quoted me on the subject, but as I sit here now I don't have any objection at all to reasonable laws regulating private ownership of guns. I just said somewhere recently too ([Msg=2913]) that I believe some people shouldn't be allowed to have them at all, and that those who do should have to be well trained how to use them safely. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So what, in your opinion, would be reasonable gun control regulation?