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?
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.
Maybe not, but the politically correct vigilantes are.
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!)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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). "
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
seriously, guns in churches is counter to the purpose of church
school have security so churches and any other religious facility should.
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.
I would think that any laws governing gun control will not apply to criminals, at least, that's what the criminals will conclude.
"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.
The churches, temples and mosques should be free from weapons. Jesus and Muhammad did not bring them in in the peaceful worship places.
"The Catholic Church has a long tradition of sanctuary, allowing people feeling violence to take refuge...."
Surely he means "fleeing violence?"
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.
Holy Crap (pardon the pun)
I completely agree with you Dave.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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)
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.
Your interpretation is different than that of most religious scholars then...
*shrugs* but whatever...
If you choose to put your faith in the more violent interpretation then its on you.
Actually it is the literal translation. It literally says that your hand must be the first upon them to put them to death even if they are a member of your own family.
It's not an interpretation or a translation. It is what it actually says.
Anything other then a literal translation of the text, is your own conjecture and is not what the bible says.
I dont put any faith in it of course because I dont believe the bible to be true.
You also seem to know nothing about my beliefs.
You'll not get an argument out of me by telling me you don't believe in the bible.
I just was saying that the "literal" translation was one of a list of laws handed down by God. Not every verse was prefaced with "this is the legal punishment for-----"
In this case, you are taking it out of context. And both christian and non-christian theologists would likely tell you the same thing.
Errm, I never mentioned your beliefs and I cant really see how me telling you what my beliefs (or lack of) would start an argument.
Indeed that is true. Still doesnt make killing someone ok though does it? Or does it? Some people think it does.
I don't believe in the death penalty, for anything. I don't believe in taking another's life, for any reason.
I don't think there is any reason ever that makes it okay to kill another person, even if the Bible says so.
On the other hand, If I was going into the home of someone I knew to be a vegetarian, I wouldn't bring a hamburger. With the exception of that little temple blow-up in his younger days, Christ was a pacifist by speech and action. So why would you bring a weapon into a pacifist's home?
We've kind of strayed from the original point. I was replying to your referral to god as the "biggest pacafist ever".
You think churches are places to worship jesus and you dont think that jesus is god?
Sorry I assumed you were christian. My bad.
I am Christian, but I don't think Jesus is God, no.
I always thought churches were places to worship god and that the bible tells you not to worship false idols (ie jesus).
You have to forgive me. In years of debating many christians I have yet to meet two that hold the same beliefs.
There are several definitions of Christianity, generally the person that defines who is a Christian uses their own belief system as a ruler. I strive to follow the teachings of Christ, however I don't believe him to be the child of God any more than you or I are. In short, I don't believe in the trinity. Christianity predated the idea of a trinity, so I guess (theologically speaking) everyone that believes in a trinity is a christian, but not all Christians believe in a trinity... (which is also up for debate among fundamentalists)
I've met many christians who dont believe in the trinity. That does leave me a little perplexed as to why a church is a place to worship jesus and not god.
I'm not sure how you define worship. However, even if you take it as "paying your respect" to Christ, then it is not respectful to bring a gun into a pacifist's house. Churches are buildings built to honor. If you see it as a false idol, then that's up to you.
This should really blow your mind, but I don't believe you necessarily have to believe in God to follow the teachings of Christ.
No that doesnt blow my mind at all. Nothing surprises me when it comes to religion or spiritual beliefs.
Are you saying that you dont believe in god and just follow jesus teachings?
I am unsure of whether there is a God or not. If there is one, I doubt that he/she/it/they has been accurately described by any human means. Basically, if he exists, every religion may have gotten something or another right but most definitely got things wrong as well.
The Biblical Jesus is a pretty decent role model and one could do worse then attempting to emulate him.
Jesus was a hippy: Let me set you straight. Jesus is God. Also the "Church" is not the building where believers congregate together. The people themselves are the "Church" and the building is merely a building where religious people gather together. "The Church" under any religious sect is the people.
Melissa: You claim to be a "Christian" yet you also claim that Jesus is not God. This is a total contradiction. If not God, then who is Jesus? Jesus claims that "I and the Father are one." "If you have sen methen you have seen the Father."
I follow the teachings of Christ Dave. I believe we are all the children of God. Jesus was also. I don't believe that God impregnated Mary literally. I see no contradiction, if you do so be it.
Melissa: All of Christ's teachings come from the Holy Bible. His birth is documented in that book. To call yourself a true "Christian" and not believe in His teachings in the Holy Bible is not good nor right.
Christ didn't advocate not defending oneself. The 'turn the other cheek' has to do with insult to your pride and honor, not physical violence.
If someone strikes you on your right cheek(synonymous with honor... Dexios)... if someone hits you on their right cheek, that would be a backhand slap, an offense. If that is the case, then you should turn(strepho, also meaning to turn course of action) the other cheek.
It is your right to decide not to carry a gun or take someone's lives, but you can't tell other people it is disrespectful for them to defend themselves. I don't see how any parent could ever let someone harm their child.
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.
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.
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.
Oh I agree, like bringing a gun into a church... that's pretty offensive right?
I think that jesus teachings are no better then my own.
Some people live by a simple standard of treating others how they would like to be treated themelves.
I forget what the philosophy is called but that pretty much accounts for everything dont you think?
I'm not sure what the philosophy is called either.
For those that are trying to change themselves, role models and teachings are quite useful. I am lacking by nature the qualities that I admire in Christ. It seems logical that rather than accepting my short-comings that I would strive to make a change. If Christ is the role-model I choose, then it is an admirable goal to strive towards.
If you have nothing about yourself you need or want to change, then you don't need a goal to work towards.
Not in every church, no. It's offensive to compare those things.
You could easily just say 'I don't think people should take guns to church' or 'My church doesn't advocate that kind of thing'. You say you strive to emulate Christ, but do you think He would say bringing a Gun to church is like bringing a porno?
I don't know, I wasn't speaking for Christ. Are you?
I am striving to be more like him, I haven't gotten there yet. However, three years ago I would have given you my opinion on yourself rather than just your viewpoints.
I still slip every once in a while, especially when people are being pseduo-intellectually condescending... I do my best though.
No I'm not, I just don't like to see advocates of Christ making broad comparisons of people's beliefs to pornography.
Yeah, you know that "I don't tell people my religion because of assumptions" thing you wave around so much...
Take that, replace it with "I am allowed to have an opinion, even on religious matters, without being called an advocate"
How about this...
I PERSONALLY, with out the input of any deities, think that if you are so paranoid of "criminals", even in a house of worship, that you should build a bomb shelter and seal it rather than owning a firearm. Jumping at shadows is your choice, but having the ability to fire multiple rounds at the shadows is completely different.
And yes, I would rather risk dying then spend my life so paranoid that every homeless man was going to rape me that I accidently blow an innocent vagrant away because I had a knee jerk reaction.
I would also rather worry about getting shot during a robbery then pull out a gun and remove all doubt that SOMEONE was getting shot. My life is worth no more than someone else's. Even if that someone is a criminal.
A normal everyday person that is carrying a gun is most likely suffering from media induced paranoia and those with "bunker" personalities are the ones that LEAST should be carrying a gun.
It's just a matter of respect Melissa. I'm sorry for calling you an advocate, I meant someone who has Christ as their role model, as you said.
Free speech covers your opinion. It doesn't cover your opinion if you start insulting people.
Do you think paranoid and prepared are the same thing? I'm an Eagle Scout, I can survive in almost any terrain with no tools. I know how to make shelters and find food and water almost anywhere. I can fashion a knife, bow, or spear. I learned these things because I enjoy them. I like to be prepared.
I mentioned earlier that I almost lost my family and my life, so yes, I do like to be prepared to defend my family. If you don't want to be able to protect your family, that's up to you.
Phrases like 'jumping at shadows' are so stereotypical. The fact is, concealed carry permit holders are, on average, much more responsible than the average citizen. They stop crimes and save lives.
With that frame of mind, then no, you probably shouldn't carry a gun. Being prepared does not mean being paranoid. And if you are responsible, getting a gun out of a concealed holster, racking the slide, taking aim, and firing is not a knee jerk reaction. It's not like we walk around with hands on butts, chamber in the round, hammer cocked.
I absolutely do not agree with this. If I see a man trying to rape a woman, his life is not worth as much as hers at that point. He has exalted himself to be god of her destiny. Again, if you disagree, that's fine. But, if someone was going to rape your child, would you really say his life was as valuable as your child's?
Your stereotypical views are astonishing...
Actually free speech covers my opinion whether I am being insulting or not.
Yes, I believe that paranoid and prepared are the same thing depending on which side of the coin you are looking at. You say you are prepared... I say that a close call with your family has turned you overprotective and paranoid. It's understandable, but there it is. From your side it makes you feel better to think that little gun would save them. Of course, someone else's little gun could blow them to bits, but don't worry about that. You do realize that most of the random school shooting etc. were made by legal guns owned by "responsible" gun owners. Within 2 hours, I could provide the links to at least 200 children who were killed with the guns of "responsible" gun owners... including a little boy who's brains were blown out at a gun shown by a registered teacher of firearm safety... He was 8... how old are your kids?
And by the way, since you are asking about my kids and if I want to keep them safe... You just had a close call, I actually had to carry my kid's coffin. So you might want to back up with your "if you don't want to protect your kids" bullshit. Insinuating that you are a better parent somehow because you carry a gun is about the most self-serving pile of horseshit on the planet.
Finally, if you don't want to be treated like a stereotype, then I strongly suggest you stop acting like one. You had a bad run in and now you carry a gun because you felt weak and unprotected. You've developed a victim mentality and think the gun gives you strength... it doesn't. You had to fend someone off with a golf club... well congrats... obviously you didn't NEED a gun if the golf club worked. In that case you would have shot someone for no reason if you would have had a gun.
Where do you get your preconceived notion that being in possession of a gun means certain use of that gun in a standoff situation?
Most cases simply pointing the gun and not shooting will diffuse a situation.
You know about the cold war right? Noone fired any nuclear missiles did they?
Prove it. I want stats on that. Link me to any study that shows that pulling a gun causes LESS violence.
You honestly think that a man trying to mug you will get violent if you point a gun at him?
Im pretty sure If I was a mugger I would put my hands up and say sorry.
Honestly, I think that if he was armed the hobo would shoot you while you were reaching for your gun.
If you had a gun and he didn't then the options come down you either shoot him or you don't.
So, if he doesn't charge you while you are reaching for your gun then he may or may not run when you get the gun out. You may or may not accidentally shoot him or over react and perceive him as more of a threat than he is and shoot him on purpose.
So only if he is completely reasonable and you are completely reasonable and NEITHER of you are over effected by adrenaline does everyone walk away safe.
We'll not even get into misfires, ricochets, or through bullets that strike the intended target AND the person behind him.
Or, you could just give him your wallet, consider the few bucks you have in it payment for not having blood on your hands, and cancel your credit cards... and everyone walks away safe.
If someones trying to mug me they deserve everything they get. The world is full of scum and they should not be allowed a free ride.
I got mugged a while ago. Unfortunately for me, he was a better boxer then me and I ended up with a broken nose.
If I was allowed to, and did posses a gun, I would have happily shot him in the leg and rightly so.
It would've served him right the theiving shitbag.
Of course if they have a gun then you have little choice but to do what they say and hope they dont shoot. IF they have a gun.
That's not self-defense then. That's vigilantism.
Shooting someone in the leg has a pretty good chance of killing them, Even if you do manage to hit the leg- which would be a challenge with that much adreniline- the femoral artery (inner thigh) is the fastest way to bleed somebody out... it's more effective than the choroid.
You've been watching too many action movies...
Killing someone because they are a scumbag is the reason people shouldn't have guns. Thank you for proving my point.
How the hell can shooting someone in the leg to prevent an assault and a mugging on yourself be vigilatism? It is self defence. Plain and simple.
Hitting an artery in the leg wont kill anyone unless they leave the wound uncovered long enough to bleed to death. Anyone with half a brain would be holding their leg to stop the bleeding.
And that is only IF you hit an artery.
Anyway, he was trying to mug me so why should I care if he lives or dies? World would be a better place without pieces of shit like that. Him dying from a botched robbery might prevent him from going on and killing 10 people.
What are you going on about movies for?
Seriously, please do some research... a femoral artery wound will not be stopped by "holding their hand on it" and the length of time taken to bleed to death from one can be as little as two minutes.
Self defense is defending yourself. Your wallet is not yourself. Furthermore, if you were allowed to shoot anyone who assaulted you, then there would be millions of dead abusive spouses lying around.
Getting your ass kicked is not fatal, embarrassing maybe... a little painful but you'll recover. Death is permanent. If you think that you have the right to play God by choosing that someone should die because they robbed you, then you shouldn't have a gun.
Once again, thank you for proving my point.
If someone tries to rob me then they deserve whatever they get and most of society will agree with me in the UK.
There was the case where a farmer shot a burglar in his house with a shotgun. Of course he got arrested and went to trial.
He didnt get charged with murder. Why? Because the jury sided with the farmer.
Wether or not he deserves to get shot is a subjective view. And my view is, fuck him.
I'm just going to let you talk now... You are making the best gun control argument I've ever heard in my life.
Yep, they deserve to die because they are scum... please go on...
(I didn't know that the UK had a death penalty for robbery, I thought that was only in some of the middle eastern countries)
I was in an area in bangladesh recently where crime was high. The givernment gave local police the authority to come down on the criminals as hard as they wanted.
Noone wanted to commit crimes after that.
I have given many reasons why self defence is a good thing. That robber might go on to kill 10 people if not stopped.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how letting robbers and rapists go about their business without stopping them will ma the worlld a safer place.
You seem to be good at voicing your opinion as if it is fact but you dont seem to provide any good reasons as to why your opinion is a good thing.
My opinion is the best opinion in the world to me, as it is mine. Were you trying to prove that YOUR opinion was the right one? If so, you failed.
It is not your job to try, convict, and dole punishment to criminals. That is vigilantism.
I am telling you what my opinion is and backing it up with facts.
You are pracically forcing your opinion on me and TELLING me that it is right.
Back it up with something or stop blowing steam.
You have produced just as many "facts" as I have..
I'm stating my opinion as well, I'm not forcing mine any more than you are forcing yours...
You are always free to stop blowing steam and leave.
I am explaining why I hold my opinion based on evidence. You are simply TELLING me that your opinion is right (by the way I am not saying anything out anyone being right or wrong because I know that opinions are subjective).
You are no more "stating your opinion" as you are claiming that it is a fact.
Your starting to remind me of thomas the tank engine.
You want me to produce a link that killing is bad? Really?
Where do you want me to start?
Do criminals reform?
http://www.cracked.com/article_19393_7- … oking.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_18618_6- … reers.html
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ … ned_l.html
Do dead criminals reform?
I can't find any links on dead criminals that have reformed?
Okay, are leg shots dangerous?
http://www.tacticalmedicalpacks.com/fil … rticle.pdf
What else do you want facts on?
I want you to explain why killing someone is worse than letting them kill you or your family.
Yes, it happens. No, it's not the general rule. You point to a few examples as the trend, and ignore statistics when they are given to you. Some criminals also commit crimes to get back into prison.
Maybe in heaven. Jesus preached to spirits in paradise, so obviously they get a chance.
Who asked 'can you prove that leg shots can be fatal?'. I personally asked if you had stats on fatality rates for leg-shots.
No, just life experience.
Do you have those stats handy?
I'm sure you will just brush them off anyway, let me see.
Survival rate to torso = 88%
Head = 5%
I can't find anything on the leg right away, but if you are the one who wants to say it is so deadly, you should be the one looking anyway. I doubt it's more lethal than shots to the torso.
I want you to back up your original point which is what I am disputing.
You said that robbers and thieves should be left alone and you should hand over your money and that would make the world a safer place.
I already asked you to explain this twice and you ignore my request.
When did I ask you to prove that killing is bad? Are you smoking crack? It might be making you hallucinate.
I also dont really care if leg shots are dangerous. I already stated that I couldnt care less what happens to the man that is attacking me.
And what point are you going on about? Your point that if you let people go around mugging and robbing and raping people without fear of being stopped that the world will be a safer place?
Sorry but I fail to see the logic there.
Do you know the odds of hitting the artery? Do you have any statistics on survival rates of gunshot wounds to the leg?
You never know if someone is going to hurt you during a mugging... people get killed. By definition, attacking someone to get their money is an attack, and defending against it is self defense.
My opinion is, if someone shoots an abusive spouse, it's their right. My wife was a battered spouse when I met her. People who treat other people like that should not be allowed to continue.
Do you think we should let anyone do whatever they want to anyone else?
You never know when someone will pull a knife, or simply kick in your skull. You seem to think that criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens.
No, if there is a threat to you, it is self defense.
Much less than you think. Something like 82% of people who get shot live. Considering that most self-defense shooting is directed at the torso(you should never try to shoot someone in the leg), that's an astonishing figure... Maybe you have been watching too many movies. Bullets don't stop people like they do in Hollywood.
If killing someone is the only way to stop them from killing you, then that's a right. What makes you think someone can't defend themself?
Luckily, using a gun defensively means that it is very rare that anyone gets shot, let alone killed.
Nobody is going to tell you to try and draw a concealed gun when someone is pointing a gun at you. Only as an absolute last resort.
See, you fail to understand that it's much more than just carrying a gun. It's understanding what to do in different situations.
Almost nobody will attack when you have gun drawn... they either get down or run away. Nobody advocates shooting someone unless there is imminent threat. We're not all as irresponsible about carrying guns as you seem to think.
If somebody charges you, you don't have the liberty of waiting to find out if they are going to hurt you or not. The best thing to do is run backward while drawing and yell for them to get down.
No responsible gun owner will ever accidentally shoot. We don't just go buy a gun and carry it around like Rambo. We practice and train with it.
NOBODY has the right to attack you.
Again, responsible gun owners practice with their gun, find ammunition that works well with it and are aware at what they shoot at. Most handguns won't go clean through a person if you hit them in the torso. Do you have a statistic on ricochets?
It is a simple show of force and a threat of violence.
If you want proof that it works go and ask the military why they use fighter jets to fly over in a "show of force" yet they dont actually shoot anything.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-co … -is-wrong/
One of the reasons people misunderstand guns, is the irresponsible reporting of the media. For example:
"But much more than a bias toward bad news and drama goes into the medias selective reporting on gun usage. Why, for instance, does the torrential coverage of public shooting sprees fail to acknowledge when such attacks are aborted by citizens with guns? In January 2002, a shooting left three dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. The event made international headlines and produced more calls for gun control.
Yet one critical fact was missing from virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars."
The media doesn't like to report these stories, but they happen. Employees get fired for saving the lives of their colleagues and customers. People get ridiculed by liberal anti-gun enthusiasts. The list goes on and on, but when you look at studies and look at facts, responsible gun usage saves lives.
Here's another: (it's older) http://www.scfirearms.org/2ndamend/releasec.txt
And I'm sure that the United States Concealed Carry Associating is the very best source for unbiased statistics.
I said this already in response to another, but since you said it again.
"[ This article was originally published July 1, 2003 in The American Enterprise and is posted on this site with permission ]"
Right under the title. I'm guessing you just dismissed it without reading it?
LMAO, yep the American Enterprise is a bastion of neutrality...
That's what I thought. Anything against your view is biased and lying.
Well, if we can only go with news stories...
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/oct … s-24-hour/
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/09 … aotic.html
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe … nt/1184869
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/201 … t-back.cnn
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/lo … 10708-wpms
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011 … el-robber/
I could probably get between 500-1000 incidents without having to look very hard, do I need to keep going?
That's a common misconception, but your freedoms to not extend to the point of causing harm or injury to others. Cases like verbal abuse, libel, slander, defamation, etc... are not protected by freedom of speech.
Do you know what the word 'paranoid' even means? I don't have delusions that people are out to get me. I'm just prepared. By your definition every Boy Scout is paranoid(learning how to survive in the wild, make snowshoes, tie knots, etc etc etc).
I don't look for trouble. I don't look over my shoulder every second. But, if someone does come to hurt my family, I'll be as prepared as I can be.
I also have enough food for 6 months... does that make me paranoid? If we lose our income, we will be able to eat. Must be paranoia.
Whether or not I carry a gun doesn't affect if someone else has a gun. My choice to carry or not to carry doesn't change the chances of us meeting a criminal with a gun.
Do you know how many people get killed with a gun each year? About 10,000. Do you know how many deaths are prevented by people with concealed carry permits? Estimates are 1,500 lives and 4,000 rapes, and that doesn't include situations where simply brandishing the weapon diffuses the situation.
Here's a story for you... surely this person who saved the lives of the people in the church is a horrible sinner...
http://looktruenorth.com/liberty/right- … -save.html
Yes, accidents happen, but compared to the overall stats, they are less than 1% of the number of lives saved(0.65%).
I'm sorry about your child, but I don't understand how any parent would rather let their child die than use a gun to stop it from happening. I'm sorry, I just can't understand that as a parent.
1 - I can pretty much guarantee that you would never know if I were the type who had a gun or not by looking at me or being my friend. You are being extremely stereotypical of concealed carry permit holders. After all, how do you know how they act, if they carry concealed?
2 - I don't carry a gun because I feel weak or unprotected, I carry a gun to be prepared. It's not something to hide behind, or to take lightly. It's a responsibility and a tool I hope I never have to use.
3 - I was lucky to be able to get the club in time, and lucky they didn't have a gun. A golf club won't always work.
4 - I most likely would not have had to shoot anyone. Approximately 95% of defensive gun incidents involve only brandishing the weapon. 0.1% of defensive gun incidents involve killing. You have a view of what concealed carry is, but it is so far off the mark.
Wow, do you always talk to people like they are stupid?
I have a little piece of paper that says I know stuff about the law... Trust me, insulting you is well protected by the first amendment. Verbal abuse isn't illegal. Slander, defamation, libel are all civil matters that require 1. Proof of falsehood of statements and 2. that the statements have caused financial hardship.
I do know what paranoid means... I also have a piece of paper that says I know stuff about words.
Do you know what hyper-vigilant means? It is what happens when people who have been traumatized become over prepared and controlling of situations that might cause the victimization again... it's a nice way of saying paranoid. I'm not feeling nice.
Also, I never said that gun carriers were sinners, thanks for trying to cloud the issue though... nice manipulation.
Now, if you can link me to a nice neutral site that isn't ran by gun fanatics, I will take your stats seriously.... until then your links are worthless.
Verbal abuse can be prosecuted under certain situations. Regardless, our rights are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing about your constitutional rights includes infringing on the rights of others.
Good for you. Did that piece of paper qualify you to diagnose me with paranoia?
What about me carrying concealed is intrinsically tied to controlling situations, vigilantism, and causing victimization? Just because I carry a gun doesn't mean I"m on the lookout for trouble. I'm a scout. Be prepared.
You think it is impossible to carry a gun just to be prepared... but it's not.
sorry... immoral. That person was very immoral for saving all those lives.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-co … -is-wrong/
Can you read? It's a re-post of an article by The American Enterprise.
The other was a study done by a college professor in Chicago.
You asked for studies. Then you dismissed them because they didn't say what you liked.
Indeed it is, a dildo brings pleasure (without harming anyone) a gun brings nothing other than a physical threat at best and violence or loss of life at worst. Which is the most offensive?
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.
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.
Now what am I supposed to do when people wont listen to me?!?!
Seriously, this guy ain't going to church anymore!
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep, it has absolutely nothing to do with guns. Just the other day I accidentally shot my husband with my coffee maker.
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.
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.
Target practice at a shooting range? Olympic events?
Do they have handgun shooting at Olympic events? What is that the "I'll pop a cap in your assathon"? Even if they do, I would gladly give up the event that I didn't even know existed for a big old vat of molten guns.
On a completely separate note, how the hell is pulling the trigger on a handgun considered a sport?
*edit: nevermind, if sweeping the ice ahead of a flattened bowling ball with a handle is considered a sport, so be it.
Hitting the target is the key to the sport.
Did you know fyi, that most notorious serial killers never used a gun?
I've used guns before, hitting a target with a gun doesn't really require all that much finesse. Try a bow.
Serial killers and their methods of killing aren't really relevant to the discussion. Just because someone was killed by a knife doesn't make a gun less evil.
Funny you should say that, I made one when I was 14 in woodwork class, it's made of fiberglass, maple, oak and mahogany, around 80 lbs of tension, could put an arrow right through a 4 inch tree.
Before you dismiss international handgun competitions, maybe you should look at what they actually do. It's not easy.
Hitting a target is easy only if it is big/close enough.
You assume a little too much about me. I said guns were evil and I wouldn't use one, I didn't say I hadn't used one or didn't know how to use one. Thank you for assuming that I didn't know what it meant to hit a target. I am saying that it doesn't require any special finesse. In short, if a three-hundred pound man that can't walk a mile without turning blue around his lips can do it, then "sport" or "athlete" really doesn't apply. From personal experience, I can tell you that winning a prize at one of those claw machines is as difficult as blowing the head off of a moving turkey (a target about the size of a crabapple) with a 10 gauge from 80 yards away... without a sight.
If you have good vision and can hold a gun straight, you can hit a target. It's not a marathon and it's sure as hell not rocket science. It's working a machine. Is making coffee an Olympic event now?
I'm just saying, you said you had never heard of these tournaments, then you dismiss them as being so easy, without knowing anything about the size or distance of target, time limits, or scoring systems.
The amount of self-control and concentration needed to score well in these competitions is tremendous. For instance, the ISSF 50-meter pistol competition, only supporting the pistol with the strong hand, standing, with iron sights only. Nobody has ever gotten a perfect score on that one.
I didn't mean to assume about you, you showed no knowledge of such events, then dismissed them as being 'easy'. I just wanted to show you a little about it.
If it were easy, as you say, it probably wouldn't be an Olympic event.
That is your right to decide. I would rather kill someone who was trying to kill me. Much, much more so, I would rather kill someone who was going to kill or rape my wife or children. A person has more right to self defense than another person has to harm them.
Do you have children? Would you rather die than use one to protect your child if you do/did?
There is a slight difference between a weapon that can be accurately used to stop a threat, and one that will likely result in major collateral damage.
If somebody comes after me or my family, it is my responsibility to protect my family. If the only way to do that is to kill the attacker, then that is a responsible action.
Yet all can be used to take the lives of innocent people. It all comes down to whether or not you think people have the right to defend themselves.
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.
You don't understand the US Constitution. As originally designed, it is a document to protect the rights of its citizens. Our government has warped into much more of a big brother.
I don't know what life is like in Europe... never been there. But, if only the criminals had guns in america, crime would rise. Anyone with a gun would more easily be able to rob any house, knowing there wasn't a gun inside it.
As long as your rights don't interfere with the rights of another, the government shouldn't say you can't do something.
I spent two long hot summers in Arizona doing hot climate testing when I worked for Ford UK 10 years ago. I loved the experience, and whilst I thought Californians were loud mouthed knobs, I found Arizonians to be nice, friendly and genuine people.
I love Europe and I particularly like the fact that I have never even seen a gun (except the assault rifles carried by the military and the police at Heathrow Airport).
Arizona is a great place... ride the bus and every single person says 'Thank You' to the driver when they get off... Any random guy will hold the door to the gas station open for another guy... I enjoy spending time in the states like Arizona, Utah, Washington, and much of New England.
Hopefully I'm going to be spending 6 months to 2 years in Europe soon...
I would like a society where there were no guns, but that's not going to happen to America anytime soon(I doubt it could ever happen).
How do the governments over there keep illegal guns out? I don't know what the borders are like, but what keeps people from smuggling them in?
We have 7,500 miles of land borders, and 12,000 miles of coastline(30,000+ if you are more precise), we couldn't keep them out if we tried.
Automatic 5 years in prison seems to work well for being found in possession of a firearm. Shotguns are permitted for use by farmers for instance, but all handguns are illegal.
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?
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"
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.
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.
As Mitt Romney would say to Rick Perry during a debate...
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.
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!
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
Wait, you mean that crime rates in Canada are comparable to those in the USA?
Can you cite a source?
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.
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?
Only 4 are above the national average, 2 are below.
Not according to the stats...
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.
The one that starts out like this...
"Crime among the country's twenty largest cities tended to be above the national average."
... 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?
It appears you are the one who doesn't understand statistics. Wow, they actually used the word 'tended'?
Especially, when I never claimed it had anything to do with gun laws. Hilarious.
LOL! No, the evidence makes that statement. Do you get it?
Yes, they used the word 'tended'. That doesn't mean the same thing as 'the 20 largest cities have the highest crime rates'.
Troubled, you used these statistics as an argument against the effect of gun laws on violence. Don't you remember this?
Yes, it makes the statement that the rates 'tend' to be higher. But, as I showed(and you didn't quote), 2 of the cities had LOWER homicide rates. Do you understand what lower rates means?
Perhaps, you weren't following along when the discussion took a turn away to compare violent crimes between the US and Canada. Please stop assaulting us with your inanities.
Do you understand a list of top 20 cities that are quoted as being over the national average? Please stop assaulting us with your inanities.
I just quoted when you referred to these statistics in the first place. It had nothing to do with US vs Canada. Look at http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1850993
again. You replied to ThePastor's comment by saying that Dallas has a high gun rate, when he was talking about loose vs tight gun laws.
It never said each of the top 20 cities is above the national average. I showed you quite clearly that two of the 6 Texas cities you were talking about were under the national average for homicides.
Do you understand that 3 and 4 are lower than 5.6?
From the link...
"Crime among the country's twenty largest cities tended to be above the national average"
That's nice, once again, we were talking about violent crimes, not homicides.
How many more inanities must we endure from you?
A tendency is an inclination. As I said before, it's not the same as saying 'Crime among the country's twenty largest cities is above the national average'.
The topic is guns. 29% of violent crimes involve a gun. 70% of homicides involve a gun. Hence, homicides is a better indicator of violence due to guns than violent crimes.
Even if you want to go with violent crimes, the violent crime rate average in the US was 472.0 in 2007.
El paso was 418(under the national average). Is it also above national average like you claim?
Maybe you shouldn't try to use statistics for arguments unless you actually look at them, instead of misunderstanding one sentence of an overview.
In addition, Texas' homicide rate is at 4.96 overall.
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.
Never call a fundie black, they will break their necks getting to a mirror.... It's all their worst nightmares come true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Taking a gun to church isn't killing. what else would he say?
I think they've amended that to 'thou shalt not kill Tea Party Christians. Everyone else is fair game. Even in church.'
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.
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 !..
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!
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.
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 !
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a country where guns are so common place I agree of course that one should be able to carry a gun for protection.
because increasing your personal safety is more important than the community being safer as a whole?
That's why I feel the way I do
If I move somewhere else, I will re-evaluate.
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....
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.
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.
I also recall a part of the bible where jesus asks people to take up arms and go with him.
We know what you think, but have you ever looked at the stats? Loose gun laws decrease crime rates in the US.
Well of course. If everything was legal there would be no crime at all.
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?
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.
Fine, that's your opinion. That's not a universally true moral fact.
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.
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 !
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.!
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 - 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
emrldphx, have you ever looked into the stats about the harm caused by a dildo.
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.
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?
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.
Wow thats really sad. I'm sorry all that happened to you.
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.
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.
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.
And people don't just rob people for no reason... just saying.
Yeah, everybody has a reason to steal. Some are poor, some earn their living that way, some don't want to get jobs, some can't get jobs. Some like it.
Doesn't make it right.
If someone comes up and asks me for money for food, I'll go to the store with them and buy them groceries.
You realize that is rare right? More often, those who beg are more likely to be beaten, screamed at, or ignored right?
Depends on where you live or where you beg. There are guys that make 6 figures begging.
Actually, it is more common for beggars to be given money not beaten up. I see beggars being given money every day. I never once saw one get beaten up.
Probably. I've seen so much kindness in the last few years, all over the US...
I actually had someone walk by and put a $20 in my dress shirt pocket when I had gotten robbed... they just said 'here you go' and gave it to me... it's what I used to buy diapers and milk when we had no money.
Yes, opinion... but it's opinion made from doing a lot of work with foodbanks and soup kitchens in my community.
its your opinion that beggars get beaten up more often then they get given something and you base that on a working in a place that gives to beggars and doesnt beat them up?
Again, I'm failing to see how you arrived at this conclusion given the evidence you have put forward.
No, just stories I've heard. Almost every homeless person has stories about being kick at or spit on. And stories of the police moving essentially telling them they have to move, and they do, then they get moved again. They have no place to go where they are allowed to be.
They can't get a job because, seriously, who is going to hire a dirty bum? No address, no references... etc. Benefits from the government also can't be distributed to someone with no address because they don't "live" in the county... well technically they don't "live" anywhere.
Do some of them have drug problems? Yep. Some of them don't though. Some of them are lazy I guess, but I've never had any problem getting any of them to do work around the churches/shelters.
So, the answer is for these people to rob others... regardless of the consequences, and the people being robbed have no right or say in the matter?
No, I'm sure you can explain to them that they should starve to death quietly or risk being shot by someone. But as you wouldn't steal to feed your children I don't think you would understand their choice.
I think if they commit crimes then they should go to jail. I don't think they should be killed. I also think that if the NRA would spend it's billions on feeding the poor and providing free rehab centers that you would see the violent crimes drop faster than even your "loosest" gun control laws.
No, I would buy them food, not tell them they have to starve.
Thou shalt not steal... it's pretty clear to me, even regardless of the legal aspect.
I think there are situations where stealing is acceptable. For example, a genocidal leader is hoarding a countries food supply in order to starve a town that opposes his leadership into submission.
You are one of those townsmen and you know where the food is being kept. You can feed the town but on if you steal the food from the dictator.
And I agree that there is probably a moral reason to kill someone... I know there has to be because my dad was an officer and he did shoot someone. I know logically that my dad is a good person. Can we settle for "I can see no reason that I could ever kill someone, no matter what? and throw in "Killing someone over money/possessions is never acceptable"
We're not talking about anything remotely like this. We are talking about gun laws in the US. The argument is that stealing from somebody can be justified. Let's not get hypothetical.
like the hypothetical attack that EVERYBODY is talking about that results in the HYPOTHETICAL handgun being pulled. Or were we actually talking about an actual event when you pulled a gun on someone to save the poor defenseless victim?
Don't you think you are being a wee bit hypocritical? You jump me for not living in reality with only facts from people that think the same way as you. You get angry over my use of religion, but then quote a scripture. You make up scenario's but get angry when someone else does?
Of course you'll protect your child from the physical harm of attack but would let him starve to death rather than breaking a commandment that you respect more. Funny how possessions seem to have more significance to you than human life.
You can't tell the difference between a hypothetical situation where someone attacks you, and a hypothetical situation where you live in a country under a genocidal leader hoarding all the food?
I'm trying to keep this on topic.
I'm not getting angry, I'm trying to keep the topic on topic. Genocidal leaders has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I never got angry at your use of religion. I got upset at you simultaneously saying you strive to emulate Christ, and that taking a gun to church is the same as taking porn.
I never said I would let my child starve to death. You're not listening.
I am listening to you, are YOU listening to you?
Yes, I am listening to me. You are the one changing subjects and ignoring points. What ever happened to the news stories and statistics I gave you? Didn't fit your view so you ignored them?
As stated, to the person that obviously isn't ignoring the points, you gave me a link to a gun support website that quotes a story from a conservative magazine. That is not an unbiased source.
Did you even look at the study? You are so focused on the source you automatically discredit the study. Interestingly enough, there are good studies conducted by both conservative people, and liberal people. I'm sorry for getting all 'condescending' with you, but you won't even consider anything that doesn't fit your view.
What about the stories? How many of those do you need?
What about the study done by the Chicago professor?
I never saw a link for any one by the Chicago professor, just that he had written one. I would also like to know his affiliations as well before I accept his "stats"
Did my stories of reformed criminals change your mind? Why not? Or did you admit that by shooting someone who was robbing you that you could very well be extinguishing a life that would eventually have great meaning but you were willing to live with that?
Because I honestly, about three pages back, acknowledged that there might exist---somewhere--- a moral reason to shoot someone. How about you? What points have you acknowledged?
Every one of your questions is a situation: be robbed or kill. The fact is, it usually doesn't come down to that. Robbers run when a gun shows up.
No, I didn't change my mind. 15,000 people are murdered every year. Let's get the cops to stop shooting bad guys too so they all have a chance to reform.
I have acknowledged maybe... 5-10 times, that it usually doesn't come down to shooting someone or not. It's just about controlling the situation. Again, most defensive gun uses don't go to shooting. Maybe as much as 5%, or as little as 0.1%.
Again, I have said I would do everything I could to avoid shooting someone. If someone is trying to rob me, just drawing the gun will almost always get them running. If someone is coming after me or my family with intent to harm, then I will draw and aim... if they run they run. If they keep coming, I will protect my family.
I was just pointing out that "Thous shallt not steal" is not a very good law since it should have exceptions.
Well, then it's all up to you what you believe. It's personal to each person.
Yes I know, that is why I asked you that question.
Thou shalt not kill(Harag = to kill, slay, murder)
Thou shalt not steal(Ganab = to steal, steal away, carry away)
Steal is very cut and dry in translation. Harag can be argued thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder.
Considering that God has commanded wars and such, I think thou shalt not murder is a better translation.
Well I think "see spot run" is a better definition... it fits my purposes better.
I said 'thou shalt not steal' was pretty clear.
You countered with 'thou shalt not kill'.
I simply showed that 'kill' is not as clear-cut as 'steal'.
It's my personal belief that murder is a better translation of Harag than kill. You ridiculing with your 'see spot run' shows immaturity.
Yes, it shows immaturity rather than a sarcastically pointing out that you would, of course, choose the definition that fits your beliefs rather than the nice big Thou shalt not KILL that every religious scholar has decided is the definition.
Every religious scholar? Really?
New International Version: “You shall not murder.
New Century Version: You must not murder anyone.
New American Standard Bible: You shall not murder.
English Standard Version: You shall not murder.
Contemporary English Version: Do not murder.
I'm sure there are others...
If you ever learned a foreign language you would know there is more meaning to a word than just the word you translate it into. Very few words translate over perfectly.
*sighs* do you really need to keep doing the "if you ever have done this you would know" thing? It's egotistical and arrogant. Of course I've learned a foreign language. As stated earlier, I hold two degrees, one in English. If you know a B.A. program in English in the world that doesn't require at least 12 hours of foreign language please let me know.
I know it's pretty easy to think that someone who doesn't agree with you is stupid, but I assure you I'm really not. I may think you are condescending, close-minded, hypocritical and morally twisted but I've never assumed you were stupid. Please show me the same respect.
I'm sorry Melissa, but I don't show the same respect to people that are demeaning in their conduct to me as people who are respectful. It's a fault of mine, but not very high on my current list of things to work on. When you get sarcastic, laugh, and use demeaning remarks, I'm not going to try very hard to coddle your feelings.
I figured if you had learned a language, you would understand that translation isn't word for word. A response like
won't garner any respect from me. I simply showed you the error of your thinking that there was a unanimous thought on the translation of that commandment.
Believe it or not, I am showing you exactly the same amount of respect that I am perceiving from you. Think about that.
In addition, I change my viewpoints quite often. I did read the story and I recognized it as propaganda and the same tired rhetoric that I've heard all my life. There were no new points, so nothing to change my mind. If there would have been something to change my mind, it would have changed.
You started this whole thing by comparing carrying a gun to carrying pornography... yeah, lots of respect there.
You read the story? I posted several stories, and I can post several hundred more for you. Or did you read the study?
If your read the study, the point about less than 1 out of 1000 defensive uses of guns resulting in the death of the attacker was 'same tired rhetoric'? As long as you are aware, and only choose to think that gun owners just shoot anyone.
*sighs* and one last response before I am done.
Even in my hypothetical robbery situation, I acknowledged there was a chance to walk away from pulling a gun to "defuse" a situations.
If you could tell me that every single time that someone pulled a gun in self defense that the result was a peaceful walk away where nobody got hurt, then I would be right behind you. However, even one in a thousand is unacceptable to me.
If you could prove to me that no guns anywhere wouldn't equal no gun related deaths then I also would be behind you.
To me, responding to criminals that are carrying guns by carrying a gun yourself is the same as "he hit me first" I guess it carries some logic, but it is a vengeful logic and sounds like an excuse to reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator.
And I read the article I had missed before, it's source is a conservative activist that happened to teach at a university. It's still biased by that.
So, one criminal(who is in the act of violating other people's rights, and possibly taking their life) dying is worse than, say, 100 innocent people being killed?
We know your opinion about using a gun yourself, but you want the rest of us to just say 'sure, kill me'?
This is the kind of language I am talking about. You demean anyone who carries a gun as vengeful and stooping to lower levels.
There is no such thing as an unbiased source. If you don't learn how to look at the actual *thing* rather than the source, you will either find out nothing new, or only find out things from one particular biased source.
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.
I personally knew someone who used to rob people to give himself something to do.
I KNOW that what you said is untrue. I have a sneaking suspicion that youre just voicing your opinion again based on zero evidence.
I'm sorry, but you can't actually believe that. Some people steal for the challenge, you'll never stop them. Some steal because they don't want to work at Wal-Mart, you can't change that. Some steal because it's the only way to keep going with a long rap sheet on the run... can't change that.
There is no reason to justify stealing from somebody. In my case, we were lucky. If we had $0.82 less than we did I wouldn't ahve been able to afford another bus pass to get to work that next week. I might have lost my job... you never know who you're hurting.
Yes, you don't know who you are hurting do you...
I would steal like crazy if my baby was crying for food. I'll admit it. Like Jesuswasahippy, I would aim at a store but I would steal in a second.
Do you not think that people who enjoy stealing have some sort of underlying issues that could be treated? I'm not sure where the working at walmart fits in, but I would assume that a small amount of robbers may be too lazy to work I guess, but I'm guessing its not the majority.
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.
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.
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?
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.
What if their child was starving? Would you steal to feed your family? Or is it murder you stop short at?
I would steal from a large supermarket IF it was the ONLY option to feed my family. I wouldnt steal from one person.
No, I would not steal to feed my family. Are you trying to justify that person's actions? My child could have starved...
You would let your child starve to death in front of you rather than stealing? What kind of parent are you?
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?
You would not steal to feed your starving child in order to protect them, but you would murder in order to protect them?
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.
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.
If you can get to a church, you can probably get food. There are so many means of help available, there is no reason to steal for food. Maybe someone doesn't know about what is out there, but asking usually turns out some answers.
Then you are in a blessed area. The food banks in my area can only provide very small amounts of food and to a limited amount of people. There are always people in line when we run out of food. We try not to turn the same people away each time, that's the best we can do.
There are more than food banks. There are resources that aren't used up. One church in particular I know won't turn anyone away without food. Interestingly, it's a church a lot of people have prejudice against.
In my county, there are three churches that act as food banks. There is the welfare office as well, but not everyone qualifies and the homeless almost never do (see post above). One church can handle about 20 individuals twice a week. The other churches about twice that. Most of the donations that come in are expired food that people donate rather than spend the money to throw away. The nearest county with a solid resource base is about 20 miles away. The homeless have a difficult time getting twenty miles. When they do make it, the police in that county have a habit of picking them up and driving them back to the county line and dropping them off on the side of the road.
I don't know what county you are in, but there might be resources you might not know about. Asking is always better than stealing.
Emrldphx, in many ways, I AM the resource. If you've never worked volunteer/social work then you don't understand how much we know about what resources are available. There simply isn't anything else.
You accuse me of not believing how things really are, but you are doing the same thing now. The world isn't as black and white as you think it is, and all the "It should be this way" isn't going to make it true.
You apparently live in a different world then I do, and apparently we both live in a different world then the people you are saying have all this help live. The difference is I can see their world, even though I don't live in it.
I'll tell you what, if you will agree to go down in the trenches (do 30 or so hours at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen) then I will attend one of my hubbies NRA functions without tuning out everything they say.
Care to tell me what county you are in? I have done that kind of work before, and there are unconventional resources that many don't know about. Regardless, this is off topic.
It's really simple. You think there are situations where somebody is justified in stealing from somebody else. Worse, you seem to think all situations are like this.
I've seen it. I've helped where I could. The only difference is you think stealing is ok, I don't.
I'm sorry, I don't have time for things like that right now. I spent a year helping people to get educated, get off drinking, smoking, and drugs, building houses, and getting jobs. Right now I have to take care of my family.
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.
In order to utilize any of the options I had available, I would have had to skip a day of work. I asked for a day off and was told I would be fired. I had to get on the bus at 5am, and got home at 6:30PM. I had a check coming that Friday, so all I could do was stretch things until it came.
I never said I could get money other ways. I can get emergency food if I need it, but the place I would go to is only open M-F 10-2. I couldn't do that with a job.
As for manslaughter 'The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice.'
Protecting the lives of my family doesn't amount to manslaughter.
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!
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.
And none of you know what you would be willing to do untill the situatio presented itself! Open your minds people , life demands it!
Interesting how this went from the rights of people to defend themselves to the rights of criminals.
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.
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"
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.
The bible says lots of things, I thought we had already established that I don't take it literally 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.
Nope, I wouldn't steal a loaf of bread. As I said, I can get food in other ways.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
While I obviously care if somebody kills me, it would not spur me to kill them.
Listen carefully here, because it is really important to me that you understand this, I would rather die than kill another person. I don't know if there is an afterlife or not, so heaven/hell thing has nothing to do with it. I simply could not go on knowing that I had taken another persons life. If they could go on with that knowledge then so be it. I could not take another mother's child, I couldn't take another wive's husband or a child's father. It's nothing to do with faith, or following Jesus, it is my self-knowledge.
Did I know whether my ex was going to kill me or just beat me up? I assumed he was going to kill me... He slept with a long-sword between us and dressed in a black cloak and twirled knives when he was angry. This does not say "I'm gonna beat you up" this says "I'm going to slit your throat"
I did hit him, three times in fact, to keep him from hurting my kids. Which turned me into exactly what he was. Someone who uses force to get someone to stop doing something or to get them to do something. I don't want to do that again...ever. By pulling a gun, to me, I would be saying that I was the kind of person that used force to control another person's behavior... I don't want to be that person.
No, I don't believe that anyone has the right to do that to me. Likewise, I don't believe that I have the right to do it to anyone else.
That is fine for you to live by. Absolutely fine! But, when you project that onto other people, labeling them as paranoid bunker maniacs who will kill anybody for any reason, that is wrong.
Just because you don't want to take a life in defense of your own or your family, don't mean people who are willing to do so are bad people.
Again, that's fine for you. In my opinion, you shouldn't allow you children who need you to be put into danger if you can do anything about it, but your choices are yours.
That's fine. There is a huge difference between stating your beliefs like this, and calling other people immoral, etc etc.
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by RealityTalk 4 years ago
Should gun owners be able to bring guns to churchNow some gun owners are upset because Starbucks won't let them bring guns into their stores. I guess it's difficult to drink coffee without a concealed weapon. If the coffee is served too hot, the customer can only yell and not shoot the store...
by Marian L 5 years ago
Why do Americans think their right to bear arms is more important than people's lives?
by zzron 7 years ago
As a legal citizen of America, how do you feel about guns?
by flacoinohio 5 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
by Longhunter 6 years ago
Here in Tennessee, we have a relatively new law that allows people with Handgun Carry Permits (HCP) to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol unless posted with a sign on the doors. The HCP holder is NOT allowed to drink while carrying or even if it's in their vehicle. If they carry and...
by Tara Carbery 5 years ago
The Church of England has allowed Homosexual Bishops to practice as long as they remain celibate.Hetrosexual Bishope are allowed to have sexual relations. Are they not discriminating by stating homosexual Bishops are not granted the same rights?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|