jump to last post 1-30 of 30 discussions (329 posts)

Wisconsin Bishops Ask Parishioners To Leave Guns At Home

  1. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    WASHINGTON -- As Wisconsin's concealed carry law goes into effect, the state's Catholic bishops are urging parishioners to keep their weapons out of church.

    "The Catholic Church has a long tradition of sanctuary, allowing people feeling violence to take refuge in church buildings as a place of safety and protection. For the most part, this practice has worked well because most people respect the sacred, peaceful nature of such holy places," Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki said in a Monday statement, which was also signed by bishops from Madison, Superior, Green Bay and La Crosse.


    On Tuesday, Wisconsin became the 49th state to allow its residents to carry concealed weapons. Previously the state had an open carry policy, which required owners to wear their gun in plain sight.

    Under the new law, which was signed by Governor Scott Walker in July, the gun does not have to be visible so long as the owner is properly permitted. Any qualified gun owner can apply for the permit, and the state must process the application within 45 days.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/0 … 72329.html
    I know many in this part of the country who brings guns to church and think it's their right...Isn't that a saying that they don't trust the other member sof a church?

    1. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Church is right on this. Only an idiot thinks that carrying a gun is a right. The reason your society is so violent is because you are allowed guns. In Europe carrying a gun results in imprisonment, and it should be. It's about time that Americans woke up to the fact that a hoard of Apaches are not coming over the hill to kill you in your homestead.

      1. 68
        logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe not, but the politically correct vigilantes are.

        1. kirstenblog profile image77
          kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yup and they shouldn't be allowed free speech either! Bloody liberals teaching tolerance and consideration in how we treat others, no place for that in church thats for sure! Free speech is reserved for real Americans! (by real Americans I of course mean republicans!)

          1. 68
            logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Just wondering where you think liberals have the corner on tolerance and consideration.  In fact your reply demonstrates my point.  Apparently no one is smarter than a liberal and the rest of us are too dumb to think for ourselves so that is why liberals have to tell us what to do and how to act.

            1. Petra Vlah profile image61
              Petra Vlahposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              are you missing the sarcasm?

      2. emrldphx profile image60
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry, you have the right to protect yourself. We can't just outlaw guns, because the criminals will still get their hands on them. If someone wants a gun in their home for defense, they have that right. If they want to carry a gun, they have that right. They also have tremendous responsibility.

        People talk about guns like something we could ban and they would just go away.

        Yeah... works really well with drugs, doesn't it?

      3. Repairguy47 profile image61
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I guess if we hadn't been allowed guns we may think the same way you do, then again we would have been subjects of the throne.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree completely... Here's your musket and your powder pouch.  We aren't really in danger of being invaded but I'm sure you can find a Canadian somewhere to shoot at.

        2. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's quite alright being one of the Queen's subjects; she is only a ceremonial figurehead. She only costs us 78pence a year in taxes but her presence brings in billions in tourism money. Sounds like a good deal doesn't it?

          1. Repairguy47 profile image61
            Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not at all, the U.S. I'm sure brings in more billions than what you do. We are also very happy with our brand of democracy.

        3. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Subjects of the throne (although I don't consider myself one of them) are also allowed to have guns. Different rules and regs of course to the US.

      4. S G Hupp profile image83
        S G Huppposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … a-U-S.html

        Disappearinghead,  I think these forums are important because in reality I believe both the rightwing and the leftwing are necessary to maintain balance.  Each of the two political positions, if allowed unchecked power, is equally as dangerous so I usually try to respect other viewpoints so than mine never becomes too blindly entrenched.   But in this case, I'm  going to have to ask why you're so hateful...

        1. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Very refreshing.

        2. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi SGH. I'm not hateful at all. I'm just one of very very many who think that having guns is an aid to escalating violence. And to answer the OP, guns have no place in a church.

          1. S G Hupp profile image83
            S G Huppposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I guess I was referring to your assertion that only idiots think they have a right to bear arms--I believe that and I am far from an idiot.  I also don't really get why you think flinging insults (making reference to the native american jabs here) bolsters your argument.   According to the FBI statistics below, the argument could be made that it would take an idiot to think that guns should be prohibited for law abiding individuals.   I happen to think it's a difference of opinion and if you don't like guns, don't have one.  I've been through the concealed carry classes due to the fact that my profession sometimes puts me in situations where I am alone with relative strangers.  I am absolutely unapologetic.  I had to take a course, pass a written test and a skill test, pass a background check and I have to remain a model citizen in order to be eligible for concealed carry status.  There are very few groups of people in my country or yours who are held to the same standard.
            As for guns in church--no, they shouldn't be there--but I think this was a matter of the bishops making a theoretical pronouncement rather than attempting to control hoards of wild-eyed-pistol-totin'-gettin-right-with-Jesus types from dragging their arsenals into church.



            "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense". (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

            The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

            The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

            The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

            The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000).

            Using FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17 states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

            Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 - 2/28/94 (over 6 years) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used). "

      5. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, maybe not a horde of Apaches; but there are a couple of Pamunke indians down the street I keep half an eye on. They sound all shifty when speaking Algonquin. My trigger finger is itching just thinking about it.

        But seriously, I copied this from a July 3, 2009 article  in Mail Online by James Slack. I'd have aded a link, but I'm on my phone.

        Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa -widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries. The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

        Statistics don't speak the true heart of a nation. I don't consider your country violent and I can assure you ours isn't either.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Emile,
          First thing, the Daily Mail has a reputation for overblowing a story and is often the butt of jokes by satirists over here.

          Secondly, binge drinking and drunkenness constitute a very high proportion of that violence. The article goes on to say that In Britain affray is considered a violent crime whereas in other countries it is only recorded as a crime if someone is injured. The Police Minister stated that one cannot directly compare violent crime across countries as each record their statistics differently. In South Africa there were 20,000 murders in 2007, compared against 927 in Britain.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know about the Mail, but I agree it is difficult to compare because there is a difference in how crime is logged. But, your comment was quite harsh so I felt compelled to respond. We are not a violent nation. We have quite a few rifles and shotguns in our home, but my husband does hunt. It doesn't mean we point them at each other, or anyone else.

            Firearms are not a sign of violence, in and of themselves. We have a right to bear arms and  defending that right is ingrained in our psyche. We have a basic distrust of government; I guess it was drilled in our minds as children when we studied the history of the birth of our nation. Although owning a gun would make little difference in warfare today, it doesn't matter. It's tradition to us.

            Carrying a gun to church is about the most ignorant thing I've ever heard of, but I'd put the peace and tranquility of this home, community, state and nation up against yours any day. I doubt your inner cities are any safer than ours. There are pockets of violence in every country.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              True there are pockets of crime in any country and many studies have shown that inequality is society breeds crime and violence. The larger the gap between the rich and the underclass the greater the crime. Countries with a much more egalitarian society result in better social cohesion.

              This us what troubles me about Britain; society is increasingly becoming unbalanced.

    2. bulldogrocks profile image78
      bulldogrocksposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have a right carry everywhere except schools and that is what I do.  Guns don't kill people or morons using the gun wrong does.  In Colorado we have had churches start there own security force because criminals have come into the church guns blazing and killed people.  I would rather have it and not need it then not have it and need it.

      1. Stacie L profile image88
        Stacie Lposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        well instead of carrying guns into church,why not have a metal detector at the door or have the pastor frisk each person as they enter...wink
        seriously, guns in churches is counter to the purpose of church
        school have security so churches and any other religious facility should.

        1. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A metal detector won't do much good if someone walks through it with a gun. You would have to hire a security guard as well.

      2. Disappearinghead profile image89
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's not the criminals you need to worry about. It's all those New World Order United Nations sucking-the-toes-of-Satan storm troopers, prowling the southern bible belt looking to enforce a one world government and take away NASCAR. yikes

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I would think that any laws governing gun control will not apply to criminals, at least, that's what the criminals will conclude. smile

      4. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "I have a right carry everywhere except schools... " And residences and businesses where the owners don't want you to carry your gun. I'm sorry, but if a business owner says no guns allowed, you'd better not bring your gun into his business. That's his right, and on his property, his right to ban a gun from his store trumps your right to carry it in there. You're not forced to go in. He loses your business; too bad for him. But if you bring your gun into a store that has a no-guns policy, you're in the wrong.

    3. 69
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The churches, temples and mosques should be free from weapons. Jesus and Muhammad did not bring them in in the peaceful worship places.

    4. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "The Catholic Church has a long tradition of sanctuary, allowing people feeling violence to take refuge...."

      Surely he means "fleeing violence?"

    5. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      One would have to ask oneself, why would anyone carry a loaded weapon into a church to begin with. Most churches are known as sanctuaries and sacred. Any weapon would be in insult to both God and the church.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Holy Crap (pardon the pun)

        I completely agree with you Dave.

      2. emrldphx profile image60
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The problem is, you never know who else is going to walk in. Criminals don't have respect for the law, what makes you think they would respect the sanctuary of a church?

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I would still not take a loaded gun to church any more than I would take a dildo to a kindergarten. Even if you don't plan to use it, it just aint right.

          But seriously, I think net risk of being shot is higher if parishioners have guns than if only crazy random terrorists do. Some of one's neighbors aren't quite right in the head either.

          1. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            When states change their laws to allow concealed carry, crime rates don't go up. They actually go down. It's not about what you think, it's about reality.

            And comparing a gun to a dildo is a bit extreme. One is a tool to defend your rights.

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It was a joke making a point that some things shouldn't be taken some places.

              Followed up by a point of logic that on average the more guns there are in a room (city, country etc), the more chance there is someone will get shot.  That is probably why the US ranks very high on Godliness and Murderliness.

              Sort of hitting the argument at both levels, so to speak.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why should criminals respect the sanctity of a church when the "law abiding" respectable gun owners don't?  If they did then then they wouldn't bring guns to a church...

          Weeee.... circular argument....

          Now you say, because criminals don't respect the sanctity then I say gun owners don't either because they are worried about the criminals.

          1. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You do know that not all churches discourage carrying weapons, right? There are many churches that support and uphold the law and people's rights as defined by law.

            If I took one to church, it wouldn't be considered disrespectful

            Do you really think that God doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself? People get shot in churches, stores, homes, cars, and on the street.

            The issue can be argued from the perspective of any one religious group, or from the perspective of the individual as well.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think that bringing a gun into a house of worship is the moral equivalent of bringing a porno magazine there.  To say that bringing a weapon into the house of worship for the biggest pacifist ever is pretty disrespectful.  Jesus was not a fighter.  Jesus, obviously, wasn't real big on self-defense either.  Else that whole crucification thing would have worked out a little differently.

              In addition, I think that turn the other cheek thing was pretty self-explanatory...

              1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What about deuteronomy 13:9 where god directly tells you to kill those who try to lead you away from him?

                What if some jehova's witnesses came into your church and nobody had a gun?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, that was more of a laying down the penalty to be imposed after trial. That's more of a "death sentence" thing as punishment than a direct order to his followers for vigilante justice.

                  I don't believe that the death penalty should be carried out in a church either...

                  (I don't believe in the death penalty in any form, but that's another thread)

                  1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                    Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, it is a direct order from god, as spoken to moses that your hand must be the first upon them to put them to death.

                    Simply for the act of trying to lead you away from your belief in the christian god.

                    There is no court or judge mentioned. If it is a penalty set by god then why doesnt god administer the punishment? He does for other things.

              2. emrldphx profile image60
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                By your system of beliefs, then it might be hypocritical. That doesn't mean everyone believes what you believe.

                The turn the other cheek thing might mean something other than what you think it means.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I wasn't speaking for everyone, just myself.  I promise you though, if someone brought a gun into my church they would be expelled... quite likely permanently... so yes, by my religion it would be extremely disrespectful of the sanctity of the church as well as the sensitivities of the parishioners.

                  Obviously, the Bishops of the Wisconsin Church feel the same way.

                  In the future, please don't try the "not everyone believes the same thing as you" crap on me.  You have no idea how far off-base you are.

                  1. emrldphx profile image60
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's just good to keep in mind before you equate someone else's behavior with bringing porn to church. It's good to realize that those things can offend others.

            2. Dave Mathews profile image59
              Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There is an old saying that applies here. "Never take a gun to a knife fight" on the same hand never doubt God's ability to destroy any weapon brought into His holy place of worship.

        3. Dave Mathews profile image59
          Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          IF ONE IS SEEKING SANCTUARY IN A CHURCH, THEN ONE MUST KNOW THAT THE CHURCH BEING A HOLY PLACE OF GOD HIS SAFETY AND PROTECTION WOULD COME FROM GOD AND THAT THE CHURCH AND ITS PRIEST OR PASTOR IS OBLIGATED TO HONOUR GOD THEREFORE NO WEAPON OF ANY KIND SHOULD EVER BE PERMITTED INSIDE THE CHURCH, THE HOUSE OF GOD.

  2. kirstenblog profile image77
    kirstenblogposted 5 years ago

    Now what am I supposed to do when people wont listen to me?!?! lol

    Seriously, this guy ain't going to church anymore!
    http://images.wikia.com/tinytoons/images/3/36/Yosemite-sam.gif

  3. Disappearinghead profile image89
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    Touchy subject; guns and Americans. When people believe they have a right to carry a gun (because of all the bad people with guns) then something has gone badly wrong with society.

    Ah well I suppose this is the legacy of stealing the lands of all those Native Americans, then 'needing a gun for protection' when they had the temerity to say "hands off white devils".

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      roll

    2. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Regardless of what anyone considers to be 'right', the fact is that America has a lot of criminals with guns. Banning guns outright wouldn't make them go away any more than banning drugs makes them go away.

      As long as the baddies have guns, the goodies have a right to decide how they want to defend themselves.

      My cousin had an armed intruder break into his house when we were in high school. Him, his brother, and his dad all slept with shotguns under their beds. They woke up when the intruder broke a window, and he was caught in the living room with 3 shotguns pointing at him from different directions. He dropped his gun and ran.

      What is the point of saying something like that. History is full of wars and people taking land from each other, in every part of the world. It's not about americans vs native americans. It's about violence vs. peace. If only the violent carry weapons, then we're in for a heap of trouble.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There are also the stories where people were awakened by intruders and were shot dead attempting to point their guns at the intruder. You're never going to know how these events unfold until they do.

        1. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did you not notice what else I said?

          " If they want to carry a gun, they have that right. They also have tremendous responsibility."

          If someone wants a gun, they have the responsibility to know how to use it safely. This includes where and how you store it, when you try to get it and when you don't, and practicing with it.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So what? roll

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You tried to demean the usefulness of guns by saying sometimes people are shot by their own. Sometimes people shoot a family member accidentally.

              These have nothing to do with the gun, and everything to do with its irresponsible use.

              When used responsibly as a protective measure, guns can save lives.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yep, it has absolutely nothing to do with guns.  Just the other day I accidentally shot my husband with my coffee maker.

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's funny smile

                  But the point is, a gun never shoots anybody by itself. Just like a knife never stabs anybody by itself. Just like the corner of a table never smashes anybody's skull by itself.

                  If people use something irresponsibly, it's not the tool's fault.

                  Guns can save lives, and at least in America, they are here. We can ban them, and then only the types of people who can get their hands on drugs will be able to have guns.

                  I prefer being able to defend myself if something happens.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I got your point.  I dismissed it. 

                    My husband works for the bloody NRA.  My dad was police, almost every male member of my family is police and/or military.  I've been around guns all my life and I've heard all the pro-gun arguments.

                    Guns are horrible, evil pieces of machinery that were created to kill other people.  I would rather die than use one (even in self defense).  By your argument, we should all be able to own dirty bombs-- as long as we pinky swear that we will only use them responsibilly.

                    Which brings up a point... exactly how do you responsibly kill another person?

                    A knive cuts bread, a table is a piece of furniture, they have uses other than the murder of another person.  A gun (at least a hand gun) has no other purpose.

                  2. Disappearinghead profile image89
                    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    In the UK just the act of holding a knife in a threatening manner results in five years in prison. We have a zero tolerance to guns, even the police are forbidden to carry them unless they belong to an armed response unit.

                    If America banned guns, sure the bad guys would keep theirs, but in time a zero tolerance approach would deal with the problem. Perhaps a phased approach over ten years. Trouble js you have too many right wing nutters who think God gave them the right to carry a gun.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                LOL! The intruder does the shooting.

  4. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    I'm just wondering, does anyone see the insanity that a church leader even had to ASK parishioners to not be armed during services?  Seriously?  I hate to sound old here, but I remember when wearing a hat into church was a major transgression.  Now we're at the point where we have to politely ask people to be UNARMED during services?

    Am I that out of touch?  My church is so liberal that guns are looked at with the same distaste as a pile of vomit but is this really a problem in more conservative churches?

  5. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Number one , when everything hits the fan in any situation of a madman and a gun , I'll bet alot of peoples last thought is "I  wish someone could save me now"

    Number two , of the poeple who carry legally , 99.9999999999 % will save you rather than shoot you , But anti's  don't get that!

    Number three , a metal detector will not pick up on composite based weapons.

    Number four , It is the touchy feely soft stand of liberals who have allowed your's and my legal system to indulge criminal acts as if  a kindergartener just stole your lunch biscuit. "oh, don'y punish the bad guys "they didn't mean harm!

    Number five , One in four?, women will be sexually assaulted in life, perhaps as low as one of two.

    Number six , Criminals don't care about Laws, rules or regulations !

    Want me to keep going?

    A liberal will say "No"

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Keep going all you want, I've heard the same arguments so many times that I tune them out.   The fact is guns are made to shoot people.  If you can get over that, then they are just peachy!  I can't get over it and no amount of "Gun's don't kill people" crap is going to convince me that a tool created for killing another person is a wonderful thing.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Guns are just weapons...

        "A weapon, leg, or legament is a tool or instrument used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings or artificial structures or systems. In human society weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, fighting, self-defense, crime, law enforcement, and war.

        Weapons are employed individually or collectively. A weapon can be either expressly designed as such or be an item re-purposed through use (for example, hitting someone with a hammer). Their form can range from simple implements such as clubs through to complicated modern implementations such as intercontinental ballistic missiles and biological weapons. Weapon development has progressed from early wood or stone clubs through revolutions in metalworking (swords, maces, etc.) and gunpowder (guns, cannon), electronics and nuclear technology.

        In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary on land, sea, air, or even outer space."  Wiki.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      As Mitt Romney would say to Rick Perry during a debate...

      "Yes please".

  6. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    I cannot believe there are people arguing against this. Of all the places that shouldn't have guns, I would expect the church to be one of them. Everyone talks about their big relationship with God. And you don't feel safe in a house of worship? Doesn't sound like you think much of your relationship with Him on that front.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's an interesting point there Emile. Church goers want to carry their guns into Church because they don't trust the one who said 'trust in the Lord with all your heart'.

  7. ThePastor profile image75
    ThePastorposted 5 years ago

    I have no problem with a responsible citizen bringing a gun in my church.  In fact, the more people that carry guns the safer society is.  It is our American heritage and we should embrace it.  I don't want to be like Europe they are a failed system both economically, morally, and most importantly in security.  If it wasn't for this gun toting USA many European countries would be toast. 

    I say, Rock on NRA!  I just wish California (where I'm at) didn't have all these goofy gun laws they are just down right stupid!

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That makes sense... The more people equipped to instantly kill someone, the safer society is.  It's all clear to me now.  I think we should arm all the countries in the world with nuclear weapons.  Think about how safe we would be then!!!!

      1. ThePastor profile image75
        ThePastorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Melissa, don't allow ideology get in the way of common sense.  Think of it this way.  If you were to break in a house and you are deciding which house to break into.  One house has three huge dogs in the yard and the house next to it has no dogs.  Which do you choose?

        The same is true with weapons.  If honest citizens are carrying guns, but you don't know which one has one and which one doesn't, crime goes down.  Just do a simple study and compare States within the USA which have "loose" vs "tight" gun control laws.  The ones with "loose" (allowing people to have guns more easily) have lower crime rates.

        True, that with loose guns laws more people have access to guns which also means there will be more people who shouldn't have guns getting them.  But the reality is, criminals get guns anyway because they are....criminals.  They don't care about the laws.

        So, to you nuclear weapon remark.  You are right!  The stronger the nation is militarily the safer it is.  Who wants to attack someone stronger then they are. 

        Those who cry for peace typically create the environment for chaos because they live in a theoretical world and don't understand basic humanity.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I understand humanity better than you could imagine.  Violence ALWAYS breeds more violence.  Always. If every citizen was armed, criminals would simply band together to have better odds.  For comparison, you might want to compare the crime rates of areas that have completely banned weapons to those who have "the right to bear arms"  Start with crime rates in Canada.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Actually crime rates in Canada are high, too, but the criminals there don't care about the right to bear arms being banned, they carry guns anyways. smile

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Wait, you mean that crime rates in Canada are comparable to those in the USA?
              Can you cite a source?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                On a per capita basis, they are high in major cities.

                For example, police reported over 437,000 violent crimes in 2010 in Canada while in the US police reported 1.25 million. Considering the US has about 10 times the population, they should have reported 4.37 million, if we were to compare.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And yet, according to the studies, Dallas Texas has one of the highest crime rates in the country and some of the "loosest" gun laws. In fact, out of the top 20 cities, Texas boasts 6 as having the some of the highest, well over the national average.

          Odd, isn't it?

          1. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Only 4 are above the national average, 2 are below.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this
              1. emrldphx profile image60
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What rate are you talking about?

                Violent crime rates, El Paso is below national average, Austin is 14% above, San Antonio 17% above, and the others more so.

                Homicides, 2 of the 6 are below the national average.

                Regardless, you pointing to Texas as an example ignores the relationship between total state population, average wealth, size of particular city, and geographical location.

                All of the states bordering Mexico have higher crime rates. Texas has 1200 miles of that border.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The one that starts out like this...

                  "Crime among the country's twenty largest cities tended to be above the national average."

                  1. emrldphx profile image60
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    ... in case you can't understand, that is not a rate. Also, they used the word *tended*.

                    Quoting that is evidence against your initial premise. That sentence says that larger cities tend to be more violent. It has nothing to do with gun laws.

                    Here are the rates for you. 2007, US homicide rate was 5.6 per 100,000.

                    Austin had a homicide rate of 4 per 100,000.

                    El Paso had a homicide rate of 3 per 100,000.

                    Yet, you use that statement as evidence that Austin and El Paso are above the national average... Do you get it?

                  2. emrldphx profile image60
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    In addition, Texas' homicide rate is at 4.96 overall.

    2. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You might not have a problem with someone bringing a gun into your church, but what has God got to say about it?

      As for Europe being failed economically, morally and in security, hello pot I'm kettle, you're black. roll

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Never call a fundie black, they will break their necks getting to a mirror.... It's all their worst nightmares come true.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          smile Don't tell me there'll be a burning cross on my front lawn!!

      2. Repairguy47 profile image61
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you believe in God?

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image61
            Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then what do you think he would say?

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think He would say that His house was a house of prayer, leave your guns at home. But heh, I don't speak for God mind.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What about your fist? Feet? Clubs? That heavy bible? God would probably be happy that you came at all.

      3. ThePastor profile image75
        ThePastorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hmmmm, the Bible which is comprised of the Old Testament (will) and the New Testament (will) tells us what God's will is.  Give me a scripture that would state that God has a problem with a person carrying a gun.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't be facetious, guns arent mentioned in the bible. However you could consider 'he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword'. I think that would also apply to guns.

          1. ThePastor profile image75
            ThePastorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I realize "guns" are not in the Bible, but the principles of life are!  Having said that I applaud you.  You did well on finding a verse, however it doesn't apply.  Key point within the verse is "lives by" which is quite different from carrying a gun.

            Those who obtain permits and legally carry a firearm are not doing so for the purpose of killing someone.  They are doing so either because it is their right or for self defense.

            Below someone else used one of the Ten Commandments.  Thou shalt not "kill" would be translated in our usage of the English language as Thou shalt not murder.  Being in context, the Israelites to whom the Ten Commandments were giving have quite a history of battles that included "killing."  The context is murder.  Again, those to legally carry firearms do not do so for the purpose of killing or murder.

            As I posted on Melissa's comment ideology gets in the way of common sense.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Why aren't guns in the Bible? Did God forget to mention them?

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    We - that's an oxymoron coming from you. Who is we?

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That would be A M E R I C A N S! Slow enough for you?

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    But are not you the only real red-blooded American?

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh no, knolyourself, repairguy47 apparently speaks for the majority of Americans and the majority of women.

  10. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Thou shall not kill.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Taking a gun to church isn't killing. what else would he say?

    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think they've amended that to 'thou shalt not kill Tea Party Christians. Everyone else is fair game. Even in church.'

    3. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Completely open to translation.

      'Harag' = to kill, slay, murder.

      God commanded his people to kill in the scriptures. I think we can safely say that 'thou shalt not murder' is just as valid a translation.

  11. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    There's always something messy about idealists ! They dont get it and they never will.  It's in the heart ,not the hand and not the gun!  I often think that we in America need a cleansing ! To rid ourselves of stupidity , if that were just possible! Ohh! But to dream. Civilization until a hundred years ago seemed to get it ! Now though , there are just too many liberally biased people. Who don't understand human nature! Group hug people ! That will cure it all, no guns ...no bad boys!Just hugs! ........right !..

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And, again, you just don't quite grasp how to effectively request a group hug. smile

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      roll

  12. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Oh and here's another idea !  Lets ban guns! And then we can all go back to nailing our "enemies " to the cross!   Its in the heart not in the weapon!

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Very well said. smile

  13. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Should a preacher point his gun at you ? And demand a hug!

  14. Jeff Berndt profile image90
    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago

    Carrying a gun around is both a Constitutional right, and generally not a good idea.

    The problem with this particular right is that its proponents are generally really loud and belligerent when asserting said right, but awfully quiet when it comes to the very important responsibilities associated with that right, and even fighting laws that will hold gun owners responsible for being irresponsible with their firearms.

    Further, your right to carry a boomstick is paramount--in public. If you walk into my home or my business, I have the right to insist that you leave your gun outside. Of course, you can choose not to come into my home or business without your gun. Too bad: if i won't let you bring your gun in my home, you don't come in with your gun.

    If a priest asks his parishoners not to bring their guns to church, then they'd bloody well better leave their guns at home. That request carries the same weight as me banning your gun from my home or my business.

  15. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    I have to say Jeff , you are wrong. The most responsible people I have ever known are hunters and sports enthuesist's , without exception  , where I live you can conceal carry almost anywhere you want to go. By far and unargueably the people with the most values [including the value of life ] are sportsman and gun owners ,I have known. Liberals are just too rattle headed and starcrossed to even begin to understand this. You wouldn't know ,by the way , if I were carrying !

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "The most responsible people I have ever known are hunters and sports enthuesist's , without exception."

      Agreed, but most of the hunters I know aren't the folks who insist on packing heat wherever they go. These are the folks I'm talking about: the whack-jobs who seem to think they should oppose laws that require trigger locks to be sold with every firearm, for example. There is no infringement in such a law; all it means is that when you buy a gun, a trigger lock will come with it, and you'll have it for when you store it (and you won't have the excuse of "But I didn't have a trigger lock").

      "By far and unargueably the people with the most values [including the value of life ] are sportsman and gun owners ,I have known."
      Maybe. Or maybe that's a subjective judgement, based on agreement with you? There's a bit of implied inconsistency in your values, which I'll get to in a minute.

      "Liberals are just too rattle headed and starcrossed to even begin to understand this." Or maybe you just assume Liberal=bad because you assume liberal=hoplophobe, and anyone who doesn't like your guns must be some kind of idiot. I'm a liberal (on more than half of major issues) and I support the right to bear arms. But in most cases, I think the practice of bearing them is unnecessary or a bad idea. Most people probably shouldn't be carrying a gun around: either they're too hotheaded, or too irresponsible, or too absent-minded. I'm in the 3rd category. I don't carry simply because I'd worry about absent-mindedly putting my piece on the nightstand after becoming complacent. But if someone does exercise their right to carry, then they need to be held responsible for what they do with their gun, or for anything that happens after they accidentally or carelessly leave it somewhere.

      True story: when my wife and I were house-hunting, we toured one place where there was an S&W .38 revolver without a trigger lock lying on the coffee table. The owner wasn't home; our agent let us in with a key from a combination lockbox. (Of course we didn't touch the gun, so, no idea if it was loaded or not.) Now, we didn't have kids at the time, but this jerkwad left a pistol lying around in the living room when he knew there would be strangers coming through his home when he wasn't there.

      It could easily have happened that someone with a young kid could have toured that house, that the kid might have noticed the gun before the parent did, and that something terrible could have happened.

      In this real situation, where a gun-owner left a gun lying around where he knew strangers would be touring his house without him being there, I hold that the gun owner bears a certain responsibility for any hypothetical accidents that might happen, whether it be a kid picking up the gun and discharging it, or it getting accidentally knocked off the table and discharging when someone stumbles into the furniture. Someone might argue that it's the responsibility of the parents, or the klutz who tripped, but it is not unreasonable to expect that there are no guns lying around on the coffee table when you tour a house for sale.

      "You wouldn't know ,by the way , if I were carrying !"
      Maybe not, but if a property owner had a sign up saying "No guns," and you brought your gun in anyway (perhaps rationalizing that it's okay for you to break the property-owner's rules as long as he doesn't know you're breaking the rules) then you are more "rattle-headed and star-crossed" than the liberals you self-righteously revile.

  16. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    And another thing! Be it a cop or a soldier , watching your backside , you canbet that guns are part of that vigil! Isn't that a nice feeling.....Enjoy it.

  17. emrldphx profile image60
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    There are two types of people who concealed carry. Those with permits and those without. Generally, those without are not law abiding citizens.

    The ones who are law abiding, get their permits, take the classes, are very responsible, and they end up saving lives. We just don't hear about it often, a lot of media outlets won't run stories like that.

    For anyone who is so against guns, and a parent, I ask this question. Would you rather watch your child get raped and killed, or have a gun to end the life of the person who would do that horrible thing?

    Unfortunately, there is nothing so sacred about a church that will keep a criminal from walking in and killing people if he wants.

    1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The problem with guns being legal is that they become much easier for criminals to obtain.

      You only have to compare the gun crime statistics from the US with that of the UK to see how much difference it makes.

      I would rather have a fist fight or swing a baseball bat at an unarmed assailant then have a shootout with some guy trying to shoot me.

      1. emrldphx profile image60
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There are slight differences between the UK and the US. Our borders are so riddled with holes, we seize 2.5 million pounds of drugs a year. Imagine how much gets through.

        Banning guns would NOT keep them out of the US at all. Yes, some would have a harder time getting their hands on them, but anyone who could get their hands on drugs could probably get a weapon.

        It's not a matter of should we ban guns in the US or not... it's just not going to happen anytime soon, if ever.

        The only question is, should law abiding citizens be able to carry for their self defense.

        I have a wife and kids. Once I had to defend them with a golf club from the trunk of the car. We're lucky to be alive. Concealed carry permit holders in the US save thousands of lives every year.

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In a country where guns are so common place I agree of course that one should be able to carry a gun for protection.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            because increasing your personal safety is more important than the community being safer as a whole?

          2. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's why I feel the way I do smile

            If I move somewhere else, I will re-evaluate.

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think that argument leads to everyone being less safe.

              There was a guy who suggested people should make sacrifices for the safety of others. I forget his name....

              1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                While what you said is true, the immediate effect (not long term) in the small picture is that your personal safety is increased.

                Of course the effect on the big picture in the long term is completely the opposite.

              2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                bah, that was edited out by the disciples...

                Jesus really took a couple semi-automatics into the temple to confront the money changers.  Don't get me started on what the disciples did to Judas... Lets just say there was a grenade launcher and K-Y involved.

              3. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I also recall a part of the bible where jesus asks people to take up arms and go with him.

              4. emrldphx profile image60
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                We know what you think, but have you ever looked at the stats? Loose gun laws decrease crime rates in the US.

                1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well of course. If everything was legal there would be no crime at all.

                  1. emrldphx profile image60
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That has nothing to do with the point. Loose gun laws reduce murder and violent crime rates.

                    Want me to upload a chart for states that change from no carry to conceal carry?

  18. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    And yes, morally bringing a porno to church is the same as bringing a gun.  Bringing a hamburger into a Hindu temple-- the same.  Bringing a bacon sandwich into a mosque... the same.  Wearing a swaztica to a bris... the same. 

    I also don't think you should go through a chemotherapy ward singing "Hair", go to a funeral with a scythe, or play hangman at a NAACP meeting.

    1. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fine, that's your opinion. That's not a universally true moral fact.

    2. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LOL it never ceases to amaze me how silly humans can be. Step back and look at what you have written. Im not getting at you, but the people you are referring to being offended.

      People being offended by the sole purpose of life, procreation. Being offended by meat when ALL living beings eat another living being to survive. They cannot survive on anything that isnt living.

      It makes me laugh. I see people arguing about the intelligence of humans being proof for creation by a great designer. I personally think that the human race are predominantly a bunch of idiots.

      wink

  19. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Melissa, Interesting , Maybe like bringing make up to a beauty salon, Or shopping for dresses when you already have one?  Soldiers , cops , airmarshals carry guns and pray !

  20. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Once again , I think you have to have been a victim of violent crime to truely understand  the need for defending one self , family  and property.!

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have been a victim, thanks though for assuming that everyone reacts the same.

  21. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    A general response to the "stop a criminal" arguement...

    There are these great guys, they are called police.  If you've been beaten by your husband, you call them.  If you are mugged, you call them.

    Then they arrest the bad guy and take them in front of these awesome guys called judges...

    These guys are actually trained to punish criminals fairly and according to the law...  Its freaking great...

    There the bad guys go to these places called jail.

    It's not a nice place, but most people survive it.

    1. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      1 - The police aren't always there in time. Hence the 14,000+ people who are killed every year.

      2 - Cops and judges aren't very effective of taking care of abusive spouses. Often there is no evidence. Sometimes they just don't care. Some jurisdictions are so overrun they can't take care of anything properly. I know, I saw the legal system in Houston completely fail in the face of overwhelming evidence. Woman calls 911, they only hear her scream her address. When they got there, he was strangling her. Arrested the husband, he was released 1 day later, kicked in the door, and killed her. That's just one personal example.

      3 - Our jails are overrun already. We don't have enough room for all the baddies.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Of those arguments, only the first one has any merit in my opinion.

        2.  I was an abused women, does that mean I can go shoot my ex-husband now?  Please explain why not?

        3.  So we just kill everyone that does a bad thing... Shit.  I have speeding tickets.

        1. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No. Did I ever say you could? If you are being attacked, then you have the right to defend yourself.



          I didn't say that. The fact is, a lot of people go free when they shouldn't cause there is no room for them.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            2. Because killing my children's father would have been much better than simply leaving/going into hiding.  Yes kids, I shot your dad but he dislocated my shoulder... that's fair right?

            3.  I agree.  But I hardly think that means that shooting them during their crimes is a good solution.

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe your situation wouldn't have warranted it. My wife would have died if the police arrived 1 minute later than they did. I wish she had a gun at the time.

              You continue to ignore the fact that the VAST majority of cases, no bullets are even fired.

              Again, how many times do we have to go over this? Most defensive situations don't involve shooting. If someone continues to try and attack you when you have a gun pulled out, that's their own fault.

  22. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago

    emrldphx, have you ever looked into the stats about the harm caused by a dildo.

  23. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    And yes , In a perfecct world , that would be heavenly ! In reality , another story .  Where I live ,  A 911 call in the night could lead to waiting a half hour for a cop!  Then  ok , so  they arrest the intruder maybe after he murders   my wife  .  In two weeks the guys out on bail, my families life is destroyed , the "victims on trial",  plea bargains  and ten years of trials , and it all comes down to  involuntary manslaughter , and  a trial technicality sets him free !    Nope... not in my world ! You can be the victim you chose to be , I'll defend my home , my family , my property  and you know what  , I won't feel guilty about it.

    1. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well said.

      I will never understand people who are so concerned with the rights of criminals, even to the point of putting their rights higher than ours.

      I mean, really, saying it's wrong to shoot someone who is killing your family?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose it doesn't matter, because it doesn't make sense to you...

        But I believe that every human being is a living being.  They have a mother, they have friends and family that love them.  Each person makes mistakes, everybody gets desperate. 

        If someone is robbing someone, there is a reason for it. I don't think that someone should die for being hungry, or unbalanced, or even bad choices that they made when going through withdraw.

        I don't believe giving up my money or even taking a beating is worth permanently ending someone's life. 

        You don't understand how I can feel that way, I don't understand why you don't.

        I've been beaten, I've been raped, I have someone that I hold responsible for the death of my child...  Yes, at each time I temporarily wanted the person to die.  In the last case, if I had a gun I would have likely shot him.  I'm glad I didn't have a gun.  It still wouldn't have been worth ending a human life.

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Wow thats really sad. I'm sorry all that happened to you.

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          +1

        3. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yet you ignore the statistics that very few incidents of stopping a crime with a gun involve actual shooting.

          If you can stop a crime without hurting the criminal, should you still just let them do it anyway?

          Like I said, very few end up in shooting. Based on surveys, it's estimated that guns are used to stop a crime between 1 and 2 million times every year in the us.

          If you could go back, you would still have let him kill your child? I'm sorry for your loss, but I could never stand by and let someone kill my child.

          You've obviously been through a lot. I'm sorry. That doesn't mean everyone thinks like you. I'm never going to let someone hurt my family, or me(if they kill me, my family suffers worse than me, emotionally and financially and physically).

          Your experiences don't change the fact that guns actually save lives. I'm not saying that everytime someone is going to get robbed they shoot the robber and save their own life. Usually, the robber runs away.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And, what if your a member of your family, in the future, becomes desperate. Commits theft, withdraws from heroin, makes really poor decisions. Would they deserve to die, for there mistakes? Try walking in another mans shoes? Try walking in another mothers, fathers, brothers shoes.

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If a member of my family attacked another person, then yes. See, people are responsible for their actions. I know that's a radical thought, but it's true.

              If a concealed carry holder pulls a gun on someone trying to rob them, then shoots them in the back as they run away, they can, and should be, convicted.

              People don't just pull out their guns and start killing for no reason, it's a last resort.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And people don't just rob people for no reason...  just saying.

                1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes they do.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, they don't.

                  2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Nah, there is always some reason.  It may not be as direct as "I'm hungry" but there is a reason.  If you can get at that reason (even if its just plain sociopath disorder) then you can stop it.

                2. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  People who rob are breaking the law and violating other people's rights. Your support of illegal activity is astonishing. Yet, you still think everyone with a concealed carry permit just shoots anyone who tries to rob them.

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not ignoring anything... I'm asking you for proof.  If you show me proof from a NEUTRAL source I will accept it.  I will still fight tooth and nail for gun control however, because I know that the number of deaths from guns would be zero if they didn't exist.  (Unless you can show me how NO guns could still produce gunshot victims)

            So please, so me show me neutral evidence... all you have linked to is a conservative website with a reprint from a conservative magazine.

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What's your problem with a professor from Chicago? What's your problem with The American Enterprise? They don't fit your views?

              Why don't you look at the studies and methodology before you pass judgement?

              I see my stories aren't good enough for you either...

              So, in other words, nothing would change your mind.

              Yes, if there were no guns, there would be no deaths from guns. But, if we ban guns, there will still be guns. The only difference is, the baddies will be the only ones who have them. 24 million pounds of drugs cross our borders every year... how many guns do you think they could bring across as well?

        4. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Somebody pickpocketed my bus pass and I got a $100 ticket at a time when we couldn't afford it. I had to pay the ticket to keep using the busses to keep working. I went with no more than 1 pop tart per day for a week, my wife had little more, and my son had a small bowl of mac and cheese every day. We had no more money... that $100 would have kept my son from losing weight and getting sick.

          It doesn't matter what situation that person was in, they have no right to steal.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What if their child was starving?  Would you steal to feed your family?  Or is it murder you stop short at?

            1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
              Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I would steal from a large supermarket IF it was the ONLY option to feed my family. I wouldnt steal from one person.

            2. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, I would not steal to feed my family. Are you trying to justify that person's actions? My child could have starved...

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You would let your child starve to death in front of you rather than stealing?  What kind of parent are you?

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I know I can get food for my child without stealing. There are organizations, I would beg door to door if I had to. I would never steal.

                  You, however, would let someone kill your child rather than kill that person. And you want to criticize me as a parent?

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You would not steal to feed your starving child in order to protect them, but you would murder in order to protect them?

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Killing someone who is trying to kill my child is not murder.

                  I can always get food for my child in other ways. No need to steal. In fact, you can get more just by asking people than by stealing.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That's not true.  It would be nice if it were but it's not.  For some people there IS nobody to ask.  There is no help available at all.

                  2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    and my son had a small bowl of mac and cheese every day. We had no more money... that $100 would have kept my son from losing weight and getting sick.

                    Sorry, you gave the impression that you could not get food for your child in any other way, If you're now saying that, in fact, you could have fed your child  despite the "stealing of your bus pass" then why on earth did you allow your child to partially starve and get sick? If this is the case, someone should have reported you to child protection.

                    Perhaps murder was the wrong word. Manslaughter would be more appropriate. But, if you'd allow your child to starve... when you could have got money other ways.... Your argument is moot.

  24. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    Melissa, I too am sorry for the trials that you have witnessed,  And you don't need my lectures but , there are people in this world who are truely evil  and  deserve no concideration for equality to the rest of us! They  are evil and deserve only the darkness that they dish out to others in the world!  I have no qualms whatsoever with  putting that person down nor should you.  And I would do that for you as well! In the right situation.  We all react to "life' in our own ways , and I respect your veiws. However , to defend ones family and property is our responsibility too!

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If I believed that there was the possibility of inherent evil, then I wouldn't be able to go on.  Believe it or not, I do understand the protection concept.  Idealists aren't necessarily stupid, we just see what we could be and choose to believe that at our best that is what we are.  We just try to get all of us to our best.  Thank you for you sympathy, but I choose to see all of that as a way to contrast the good stuff in my life.  *smiles* You would be amazed at how little small stuff bothers me.

  25. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    And none of you know what you would be willing to do untill the situatio presented itself!  Open your minds people , life demands it!

  26. emrldphx profile image60
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Interesting how this went from the rights of people to defend themselves to the rights of criminals.

  27. emrldphx profile image60
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Anyway Melissa, all of this is a convoluted argument from you that people have more right to attack others and steal from them, then people have to defend themselves.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Once again, almost as convoluted as "I would shoot somebody to save my child but I wouldn't steal a loaf of bread to feed them"

      1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
        Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thou shallt not kill doesnt say anything about self defence does it? Thats not very good then is it?

        Of course the bible does tell you that if you strike your slave, as long as they survive for more then a few hours before they die, then it is acceptable.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The bible says lots of things, I thought we had already established that I don't take it literally smile besides, I don't own any slaves.

          He brought up a commandment, I countered.  And killing is a little broader than murder, semantically speaking, I might give you that self-defense isn't murder but it still is killing.

      2. emrldphx profile image60
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nope, I wouldn't steal a loaf of bread. As I said, I can get food in other ways.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And since YOU can, everyone else can too.  Because your life is exactly like everyone else's.  I live in Taylor County WV.  Have at finding the imaginary resources that you think you can find to prove me wrong.  Because I must be mistaken if I'm telling you that something is different than what I'm saying it is.

          1. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I found resources I could use there... anyway, that's not the point. The point is whether or not anyone has the right to steal from anyone else. Regardless of situation... does being in a certain situation give you more rights over a person than they have over themselves?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Which moves back to original question, do your rights to shoot someone outweigh their rights to live.  Do someone else's rights to eat outweigh your rights to have a bus pass? 

              So either the answer is yes or no... right?

              So tell me, what is YOUR answer?

              1. emrldphx profile image60
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I would only shoot someone if myself or my family were in danger. If someone tries to rob me I will step back and draw. If they continue I will bring the gun in line. If they continue, then I have given them every chance. They have no right to ever take anything from me, or harm me, or my family.

                If they decide they still want to continue attacking, then yes, I have more right to shoot them than they have to live. If they care about their right to live, they would stop, or walk/run away.

                That's my answer. You continually ignore the fact that carrying a gun does not equal shooting anyone who looks at you the wrong way.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So yes, I believe that, at times, another person's rights are more important than mine.  Absolutely.  By extension, I believe that -at times- other peoples rights are more important than YOURS too. 

                  And yes, I believe that someone has more of a right to beat the crap out of you then you have the right to kill them.  I also believe that someone has more of a right to beat the crap out of me then I have the right to kill them.

                  Was there any other point that I ignored?

                  1. emrldphx profile image60
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, that was very thorough. I appreciate you sharing your opinion.

                    My question is, how do you know when someone is just going to 'beat the crap' out of you, and kill you?

                    You know my belief by now. Nobody has the right to beat the crap out of you. They have 0 right to do that.

  28. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    And that extends to I would rather be killed than threaten someone with violence.  If I have to put forth "a show of force" in any circumstance to change someone else actions, then I choose to let them do as they will.  It is on them, not me.

    1. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Again, up to you, and that's fine.

  29. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    *sighs* Actually, it is exactly what I feel like the gun advocates are doing to me.  Guns are great, it's their right, etc.

    It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?

    I honestly do see a bunker mentality in your statements, that's my opinion.  It was aimed at you, not all gun carriers.  Sorry if that sucks, but there it is.

    I had a conversation with another member of the forums who carried a concealed weapon (in a different thread) that I got absolutely no feel of that from, so it wasn't a part of my argument.  In short, I wasn't making general statements, I was talking to you directly.

    So don't be insulted for the sake of all gun owners, just yourself.

    I never thought I would do this, and there are people on the forums that I disagree with way more than you on more important things (read brenda) but I am going to respectfully ask that you do not respond to any of my posts and I will not respond to yours.  I've seen such agreements on these boards before.  Otherwise, I've said my piece and will not be returning to this thread.

    1. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You came in from the very beginning being sarcastic with me.  I tried for one more post to be polite with you, but you shot that out of the park. Maybe that's what you read in me.

      Perhaps if you had shown respect from the beginning our conversation would have been different.

    2. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If that's what you want, that's fine. I apologize in advance if I respond to something, I don't always look at who says something, just what is said.

  30. S G Hupp profile image83
    S G Huppposted 5 years ago

    We are all responsible for the choices we make.  Would I do whatever I had to to feed my family? Yes.  Would my first choice be to rob someone? No. I personally have never come across a church that wouldn't feed you if you asked them to so my go-to solution, since I am a moral person is NOT to victimise another human being. Period. We have become a society that is rotting with excuses. The flip side of this is that killing another human being would always be an absolute last resort for me--no question.  But if I had to choose between the safety of my children and the well-being of an attacker it's a no brainer.  For some perspective, consider the recent home invasion case in New Hampshire.  Can anyone really argue that the BETTER moral decision would have been to ALLOW the rape and then murder by burning alive of that family? Is it POSSIBLE to argue that THAT family shouldn't have had the right to defend themselves by any means possible...that the evil killers should not have been met with lethal force because golly, what they really needed was a hug? Wow.

    1. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      My thoughts exactly. Maybe if more people understood that people who carry consider it an absolute last resort, we could rid the stereotypical image of Rambo wanna-bees just shooting everyone.

      I don't keep up with these gun stories, but they happen all the time. Maybe that criminal would have reformed in 20 years, but that is no reason to say his life is more valuable than those innocent people.

 
working