Summations Only

If that's what you are saying then no I don't have respect for your opinion.But what you actually stated was that reacting to a person carrying a rifle in a school hallway by calling the police is unreasonable. You claimed that people would be screaming Well given that the practice is illegal, the police ought to be called. I have even less respect for your opinion it that case.We haven't lived with guns as we did in the 1800s for quite some time. If re-introducing guns surprises the police, well, then they weren't paying attention when the laws changed. It's their (the police) fault.

You are really suffering from some kind of confusion. No I did NOT say that calling the cops NOW would be unreasonable, or that people being scared is unreasonable THESE DAYS, I just think it's sad that people would freak out at a good guy carrying an unbolted rifle through a school, sad that it IS illegal, sad that they CAN'T have the shooting range in the basement that they had in the 60s because of the gun control fanaticism, sad that gun control has succeeded as far as it has. It has not done one good thing for the nation. Just as it hasn't in the UK or Australia though they keep denying the obvious problems it has caused there. You really are not making sense. In the 60s, not the 1800s, you could walk through a school with a rifle without upsetting anyone. "RE-introducing" guns? But open carry has never been made illegal in Nevada, it's always been legal, no laws have changed. What ARE you talking about? Some of those who want to keep it legal are actually carrying the guns in public so that it won't become as scary as gun control wants to make it.

HBD, the murderers will always be able to murder. But if you allow guns in the hands of the good guys they might not be able to murder as much as otherwise, not in those public situations like the schools and malls. If one person in that caf in Australia had been carrying a gun perhaps that Iranian fanatic would either not have attempted what he did or would have been shot dead before he got anywhere with it. The cops wouldn't need all that SWAT team type gear if normal people were allowed to be armed in normal situations.No, the murderers are not going to up the ante if they know normal people at that location are likely to be armed. No, you are wrong about that. They do want to kill people and they don't want someone else killing them, they want to do it themselves.Jesus never said we have to let ourselves be absolutely defenseless against violent criminals. We are not to resist insults, that's an ego thing not a violence thing (yes I'm bad at it, but not ALL the time.) Jesus was being arrested and was going to His death for us, and Peter didn't have the faith not to retaliate. I suppose ideally Christians should have that much faith when we and our families and strangers in a mall are threatened by murderers, but I really don't think that's expected of us. If preachers in the Revolutionary War era could preach self-defense against tyranny from the Bible I take that as meaning there's a good case to be made for it.More good guys being armed means LESS violence. Disarm the good guys and you increase the violence. That IS what has happened in the UK and Australia. Not specifically GUN violence but violence, crime, attacks on citizens. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You have already given enough of an answer to my repeated question to show where you are coming from on this issue.I'm sure the other posters and the lurkers can see that as well.

Are there no preachers that have preached for non-violent resistance against tyranny?Faith, I understand how you think this would work. In some ways it even sounds reasonable. But I just don't agree that the way to solve the problem of gun violence is for citizens to carry more guns. It didn't work for the old West and it wouldn't work in our modern societies. Violence ALWAYS leads to more violence, not less. This is the major flaw in your theory. Who ARE the good guys? How can you be certain that the people you arm are actually the good guys?HBD

The bad guys are already armed...

I'm sure there are pacifist preachers, and there were loyalists during the Revolutionary War who may have preached against the war, not sure about that, but just the fact that some could make a biblical case for resistance to tyranny should mean something.Even if I could take the position that I personally should not defend myself against violence, because I should have the faith to know that it's all in God's hands, it would be hard to make the case that I shouldn't defend others who are being threatened if I have the ability to do so. Wouldn't it have been better if a couple of armed teachers could have taken down the killer of twenty children before he could pull it off?You can't ever be really sure of who the good guys are, of course, but at the very least shouldn't we be able to put basic trust in the majority of American citizens who have no criminal record and no history of mental illness and things like that? Nothing's going to be perfect in a fallen world.How did guns make the Old West MORE violent? Says who? What with the gold rush and the general lawlessness of an unsettled society it was a magnet for all kinds of criminals, you want the good guys to have no means of defense against them? Why are you equating the means of self defense with the cause of violence? It's the criminal mentality that causes the violence.There really should not be an escalation of VIOLENCE by the mere possession of guns, there really should be a reduction in violence. I'm standing by that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are going to have to demonstrate this. I don't believe people routinely brought guns to schools even in the 1960s. Let's look at what you actually said. Yeah, looks exactly like an indictment of people today. But the truth is that the cause is not an irrational fear of guns, but the knowledge that the person coming down the hall is not a law abiding citizen. There is no gun range in the basement.The idea of having a gun range in a school basement seems a bit silly anyway. What's wrong with shooting ranges?

Shooting range in basement: ROTC. As I said.No, I don't think it's unreasonable to scream and run for cover TODAY at all. I think it's the law that's stupid. People ARE afraid of guns because they are no longer a normal part of American life.

I'm well aware that some gun nuts believe that gun control advocates are afraid of guns. Well regardless of whether I'm willing to give you personal information regarding whether I currently have any guns at my house, I can tell you that as a former military officer, I've carried guns rountinely and that at one time I was a pretty good shot with a 9 mm as well as with an M-16. I highly doubt that I am an great shakes with either anymore.In any event, I'm not playing your silly game, Coyote and I don't give a hoot about the people who assume an answer and question my advocacy because of it.

You want me to demonstrate that you could walk through a high school carrying a rifle without freaking people out in the 60s? Wasn't my brother's saying he was able to do that enough evidence for you? He said they asked him to remove the bolt. If anybody had been upset by it he would have known it, or they wouldn't have let him do it. Why would it have to be something done "routinely" to make this point? It couldn't be done today at ALL. Message 2943Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Okay. I concede the point. Surely there are some JROTC programs that have marksmanship programs even now. I'll bet that the guns don't manage to meander down the school hallways in those schools. Which is a more reasonable statement than to just call gun control advocates zealots who cause the police not to understand the law. I don't agree with your opinion, but at least it's not just an indictment of people who want reasonable gun control measures. Gun advocates ascribe all types of motivations, emotions, and reasons to people who advocate gun control. For the most part, its not worthwhile to engage the more zealot arm of the gun advocate position in a discussion.And there are lots of distinct reasons for why states do not have open carry. Texas law, for example dates back from reconstruction. Blaming gun control zealots for open carry not being the norm in situations like that is ridiculous.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So you would support background checks that would be needed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Would all mentally ill people be banned from having weapons? What about families with a mentally ill family member?

Background checks, yes, all mentally ill don't know, whole family no. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

People made a "Biblical" case for slavery. So what? Yes, definitely. I would have pulled the trigger myself if I could have saved the lives of 20 children. I can imagine situations where I would not hesitate to kill someone in order to protect my family and loved ones. I get that. But that's just not reality. If we could put ourselves in the exact right spot, at the right time, with a gun, there could be some good that comes from it. But to have guns all over the place on the off chance that something happens where you are in a situation that you do need to defend yourself is just unrealistic. Maybe, until they find themselves in a tense situation. Someone with a little too much to drink at the bar thinks he's being cheated a pool, an aggressive driver cuts someone off in traffic, someone grabs the last PlayStation out of another's hands, etc. Now, we have all these people in tense, angry situation packin heat. What's good can come of that?I don't know what the answer is, Faith. But I am less and less inclined to think that more guns = less violence. That equation just doesn't add up to me.HBD