+DieChecker Posted June 27, 2013 #626 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) DieChecker, on 26 June 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:Correct me if I am wrong, Psyche, but I believe from what I've read that Australia never has had as unrestricted gun ownership as the US has even now. England and Australia both have long histories of the populace being told what the gun laws were going to be and going along with them, which is a completely different cultural view then an American has. Unrestricted? You could take 5 minutes and read yourself. http://en.wikipedia....cs_in_Australia From your link.... From the beginning there were controls on firearms Yeah. I read that link when Australia was first brought up. Have you read it? Your point is??? One of these must apply.... 1) You read my post wrong and are trying to post that Australia has always had restrictions. In which case You mistakenly posted that I was wrong. Or... 2) You believe that Australia has been unrestricted for most of its history. In which case you are again mistaken, and should read your own link. Or... 3) You didn't really read my post or the link and posted out of emotion. In which case you need to calm down. Edited June 27, 2013 by DieChecker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 27, 2013 #627 Share Posted June 27, 2013 You can throw a law like that staright in the bin if you have easy access to guns all around the city. But the government has done what it can to collect those guns. They have offered buy backs several times. And apparently the criminals think that getting $500 (or whatever it is), is not as much as they can get using the gun in a burglery or robbery. How will such laws work nation wide if the very Capital City of our Nation can't get it to work? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 27, 2013 #628 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I have never been to Montana or to North Dakota, But to DC and New York. But still then, it is hard to say what are the specific reasons for crime. Sure urbanization is one of them: When a lot of people sit together, crime is more likely to happen. But a lot of other factors have a huge influence as well. So just cutting it down to a certain "crime culture" wouldn't do it. That's the inevitable monster crime creates. It's an interesting topic, but I'm off to bed now. So, later on. Later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted June 27, 2013 #629 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Now we take the aspect of opportunity into consideration, and allow citizens to arm themselves, all of a sudden even if someone has no moral compass he does not have the opportunity he needs to commit this crime. He walks into a school convinced to shoot a bunch of kids(With the means to do so), and armed security officers will either deter him by way of intimidation ("****, they have guns too!"), or they will deter him by way of force(Bang), but he will not have the opportunity to harm those kids. And as we saw with the Norway shooter couple months back, even total crazed nutburgers can get guns if they follow the laws and fill out the right paperwork. Mister Joe Shoot-em-up who never committed a crime can walk in and take a class, get a permit and buy a gun, then go shoot up a school. Even if only the police and military had guns, we've seen military men shoot up people too. Like that Muslim fellow up at Fort Hood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted June 27, 2013 #630 Share Posted June 27, 2013 But isn't that what they did in DC? And it certainly has not worked there... That's exactly what they're asking for in discussion after discussion. They want more Washington DCs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 27, 2013 #631 Share Posted June 27, 2013 More than likely they don't have any stories about how the presence of guns leads to deaths and injuries that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. This is called biased reporting and those who read such sources do not get a balanced perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tata Rompe Pecho Posted June 27, 2013 #632 Share Posted June 27, 2013 More than likely they don't have any stories about how the presence of guns leads to deaths and injuries that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. This is called biased reporting and those who read such sources do not get a balanced perspective. Should they also report how the presence of spoons, forks, knives, drinking glasses, mirrors, and just about anything else can and have lead to death and injuries? Better yet, the presence of humans can and has lead to death and injury... Should they report that humans lead to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 27, 2013 #633 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Tu quoque. Seems to be the only argument gun advocates have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLOMBIE Posted June 27, 2013 #634 Share Posted June 27, 2013 So you admit banning guns doesn't stop bad guys from having them? So the point in banning them is...?.?.? Huh? I said that insular laws are useless. It is a fact that illegal guns get smuggled from the States to Mexico. But I am not for gun bans anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLOMBIE Posted June 27, 2013 #635 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) Double Edited June 27, 2013 by FLOMBIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted June 27, 2013 #636 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) One of the best stories I have read in ref to - GUNS SAVING LIVES This news article ( video footage inside ) speaks of a grandmother who's son bought her a gun for her protection two years before the attempted robbery in her store. A man armed with a knife tries to rob the grandmother, doesn't go as well as he planned.. Story below... Grandma With Gun Halts Store Robbery A gun-carrying grandmother in Milwaukee foiled an attempted robbery when she pulled a firearm on the suspect as he grabbed for her grocery store cash register. Ernestine Aldana, 48, was behind the counter at the San Ignacio Market when a man in a dark hat pulled a knife on her and attempted to rob the store register, police said. Aldana pulled a handgun from behind the counter on the man, causing him to flee. “All I remember is being scared,” Aldana told ABC News. “I believe if I would have had my finger on the trigger I would have shot, thank god it actually didn’t come to that, everybody thinks it’s easy to pick up a gun and shoot someone, it’s really not.” Aldana said she was thinking about firing, but by then the suspect had already had turned to flee. See more in here including the video footage of the robbery - http://abcnews.go.co...-store-robbery/ It seems that ( for many cases ) the attacker / robber only has to see the sight of the gun and they flee ..I guess even when they have a knife, the gun is superior and they leg it..lol Reminds me of one of my favourite movies, ( The Untouchables ) a line from Sean Connery who played Jim Malone... " Isn't that just like a wop? Brings a knife to a gunfight " Edited June 27, 2013 by Beckys_Mom 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted June 27, 2013 #637 Share Posted June 27, 2013 More than likely they don't have any stories about how the presence of guns leads to deaths and injuries that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. This is called biased reporting and those who read such sources do not get a balanced perspective. I'm not denying that those things happen, but I'll wager they happen a lot less than the presence of a gun saving a life...at least the life that is seeking to follow the law. It may not seem that way because the cases you're talking about are surely reported more thanks to our wonderful unbiased media. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 27, 2013 #638 Share Posted June 27, 2013 There are some things that come down to basic morality. We all are good at rationalizing what we want to do as somehow morally acceptable, but that is human failing. As we advance in spiritual understanding, we begin to understand the admonition to "turn the other cheek" more deeply; things like guns and striking other people become clearer in one's understanding as failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted June 27, 2013 #639 Share Posted June 27, 2013 So Frank, do you think this young lady should have turned the other cheek? (I feel kinda bad about posting this yet again) http://gawker.com/horrific-footage-of-violent-nj-home-invasion-caught-on-576207527 As a Christian, I agree in principle with turning the other cheek. But where do you draw the line? Does this mean if someone is intent on doing you serious bodily harm, or even killing you, that you should just meekly submit? Maybe in some cases, but if this is true, we should never have fought Hitler and somehow I think we should have. I'm truly interested to hear your thoughts on this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted June 27, 2013 #640 Share Posted June 27, 2013 One of the best stories I have read in ref to - GUNS SAVING LIVES You mean something that this thread is actually about? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 27, 2013 #641 Share Posted June 27, 2013 When do we use violence to resist evil? I am not a moral absolutist, although no doubt I sometimes sound it because I think moral considerations should come first in all decisions. Still, some things are more wrong than others -- the white lie to save someone's dignity as opposed to the venal lie for profit. They are both wrong but the former is offset by a good. My reaction to guns is visceral -- I detest and fear them. I went through a blood war and lost all my brothers and sisters. I don't know about the right or wrong in the war -- a foreign nation was forced to leave Vietnam and the country was unified, but under a system that caused great suffering in the country for over a decade. Was the resistance to the Americans justified? I think in the end the good outweighs the bad, but one never really knows. If the Americans had stayed out Vietnam would have been unified with much less death, much sooner, and with less radicalization of the ultimate winners. A similar thing about Hitler. How does one know what would have happened if he had prevailed in Europe? He was an ill man and would not have lived long, and maybe more diplomacy could have brought enough delay to avoid the terrible blood bath and the ensuing struggle of the Cold War. What I am saying is that these huge issues don't have simple moral answers. Normally the presence of a gun makes matters worse than they would otherwise be. I know that I could never in self-defense use one on another person, and even trying to defend others I would probably be singularly ineffective. Self-defense to me is limited to flight or warding off blows and the use of one's wits to try to defuse things. Of course I think often people live lives that gets them into trouble while with a little sense and physical defenses in their home the situations would not arise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted June 27, 2013 #642 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I think this was posted before, at least this incident, but I thought it was worth posting again because of what it says at the bottom of the article: If you think that the woman couldn’t have been killed with the man’s feet, think again. In 2011, more than twice as many murder victims died from “personal weapons” — hands, feet — as did from rifles of all kinds, not just “assault weapons.” In this case, the man was the woman’s jilted ex-boyfriend who had been stalking her. She might be considering a concealed-carry permit next, if the boyfriend isn’t put away for a very long time.http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/14/video-passerby-with-concealed-carry-in-wisconsin-saves-womans-life/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellapenella Posted June 27, 2013 #643 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) Seems like there's so much going on politically that involve our freedom and right to defend ourselves. I often wonder why anyone would dare suggest to disarm a nation of law abiding citizens, I wonder if people understand why the second amendment is in place ? It's there to protect a nation of people if ever a government became tyranny . Guns were at the time the amendments were constructed , suppose to save us from tyranny , if ever that was the case, now i think our only hope , if that was to ever occur would be our Military..Though I think if it would occur , it would do so ever so slightly at a time , sneaking in new laws and removing constitutional freedoms that protect from tyranny....Hmmm Makes me wonder, what is going on, secretly ? Guns do save lives though , and being that crime is what it is, especially when government is corrupted it trickles down into society , money is more difficult for people to earn enough of , and jobs are difficult to find that can comfortably accommodate a family to live comfortably. Crime arises , and people seem to become less caring for others, also the drug problem that is pushed into societies is another factor that creates an unsafe environment... Though , I still do find good in most people. But yeah guns do save lives.... Edited June 27, 2013 by Reann 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted June 27, 2013 #644 Share Posted June 27, 2013 On your last post I mostly agree with you, Frank, and I've always thought that lots of times you can stay out of trouble by not looking for it (as an obvious example don't go to bars where many people are looking for and wanting to get into a fight), but sometimes I fear even with all due precaution and care, trouble comes knocking. I'm not an expert on moral philosophy by a long shot, but I believe in a confrontation between a law-breaker and a law-abider, if one has to die, better imo the law-breaker should die. Not that all confrontations end in one person dead, but some do. As comfortable as the rose-colored glasses may be, they're not always realistic (not saying you're wearing rose-colored glasses, just thinking out loud I guess...or maybe trying to use a little humor to ease tension?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLOMBIE Posted June 27, 2013 #645 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) Why does always somebody have to die? Is a burglars intent to kill you? You are always thinking in absolutes. The same goes for the gun debate, as there are only to options presented here: A total gun ban or guns for everybody, while there is a lot of middle ground. Edited June 27, 2013 by FLOMBIE 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 27, 2013 #646 Share Posted June 27, 2013 If its a choice between me and another person I would elect to die. I think thought that that is a bit melodramatic. The real issue arises when you are called on to kill others to protect others or for your country. I'm too old now for it to be an issue, but were it to come to that I would feel compelled to serve my country. I think most people see it that way, but I also understand those who do not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted June 27, 2013 #647 Share Posted June 27, 2013 If its a choice between me and another person I would elect to die. Jesus. That's one of the most pathetic things I've ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacsMom Posted June 27, 2013 #648 Share Posted June 27, 2013 "turn the other cheek" I would rephrase that as "hand me more bullets because I'm going for that eye for an eye thing". I jest somewhat because I do feel that forgiveness is a great thing. Just don't ask me to forgive you when you've got a gun to my head while demanding my wallet. Or you've done something to my child whether or not it involves a weapon. I'm a proud and trained gun owner with a CCP. We own several. I carry daily. I refuse to be a victim and will do whatever it takes to prevent that. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah G. Posted June 27, 2013 #649 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) If its a choice between me and another person I would elect to die. I think thought that that is a bit melodramatic. The real issue arises when you are called on to kill others to protect others or for your country. I'm too old now for it to be an issue, but were it to come to that I would feel compelled to serve my country. I think most people see it that way, but I also understand those who do not. Interesting.... I'd rather die than let someone else die but on that same line, I'd kill for someone I love but probably not for myself. And I'm pro-gun. Seems we aren't as far apart as you think. Edited June 27, 2013 by Leah G. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLOMBIE Posted June 27, 2013 #650 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I would rephrase that as "hand me more bullets because I'm going for that eye for an eye thing". I jest somewhat because I do feel that forgiveness is a great thing. Just don't ask me to forgive you when you've got a gun to my head while demanding my wallet. Or you've done something to my child whether or not it involves a weapon. I'm a proud and trained gun owner with a CCP. We own several. I carry daily. I refuse to be a victim and will do whatever it takes to prevent that. How exactly does a gun prevent you from being victimized if you are being challenged by an armed perpetrator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.0332af9e78f2251ae24e5aa89207b58c.png){kind=tracking}
Recommended Posts