Huge Gun-Lovers Rally on MLK Day - Not A Coincidence but By Design

[LightLoveHope]

No, you would just have more death. Restrictions on guns doesn't stop killing. It only stops non criminals from having access to the mean to protect themselves.

I can think of hundreds of easier ways to kill hundreds of people than guns. The problem is evil people. No Amount of restriction stops evil doers from murder, only good people with the means to defend against evil doers.
More people died from a couple airplanes deliberately crashed into the twin towers than in any shooting.

If guns kill 33,000 people a year, 3,000 dying in the twin towers is much less in numbers and a one off event, whereas 33,000 every year keeps on happening.

Good people only stop 1% of gun incidents.
The argument you have put forward is the same type of argument people used against seat belts. It was safer to allow the passenger to choose what happened in an accident than be held in by a seat belt.
But seat belts saved lives. Round the world, a lack of guns saves lives, fact. Too many guns in the hands of everybody kills people. Fact. Remove the guns or have the guilt of literally accepting the murder of all these innocents.

 

[Darkhorse]

Studies are the best answer to what is actually going on

"The likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likelihood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%)," Hemenway and co-author Sara J. Solnik found.( The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011 paper )

Basically violent crime is dropping but the potential for death from guns is growing.
If the justification of gun ownership is to defend oneself, but the actual outcome is no better than no guns being available, why not remove them out of the equation, saving the lives of those caught up in non defensive use.

"people defended themselves with a gun in roughly 0.9 percent of crimes committed over this period"
All the justification has just left the building.

Trees fall on cars so all cars should be built to withstand crushing by trees. No. Avoid trees likely to fall over. So violent crime is dealt with by better preventative measures not gun ownership which carries little effect on the actual outcomes.

If guns were removed from the situation and death from guns was reduced statistically to other developed nations, 2013 figure of 33,636 would fall to 1,345 saving 32,000 lives.

This is the meaning of the phrase "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher"
How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries

32,000 lives per year. Now that is a lot of people, a really lot of people.

Well, based on my experiences, I'll take my chances - so I carry a gun.

In the USA, we prefer dangerous freedom to safe incarceration.
I don't think people in the UK have ever understood that.

 

[renniks]

Good people only stop 1% of gun incidents.

And where do you get this statistic? How often are the incidents of defense reported?
And what defines a gun incident?
A survey conducted in 1993 by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz estimated that more than 1 percent of American adults had used a gun defensively in the past year. This implied something on the order of 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually.
If this is your 1 percent, it's not 1 percent of gun incidents. It's 1 percent of the population.
But no one really keeps accurate count of all the times a gun stops crime but is never fired.
It would be impossible.

 

[Darkhorse]

It is not difficult to imagine. If I have a gun, you can die in 3 seconds. If I do not have a gun, I have no easy way of causing this much harm at all.

Really? Ever hear about bombs? How about poison gas? How about biological weapons?

These are much easier to make than guns are. Some of Obama's friends did so in the 1960s.

I'm not talking about internet "experts" and YouTube videos; I'm talking about people educated in chemistry, or military ordnance, or infectious-disease control. Millions of them exist.

It doesn't even take this degree of sophistication to kill many people quickly.
All it really takes is an evil imagination. The destructive means are all around us.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Proposition
Every school, every threatened area you have an appointed defender of that area who has access to a

Well, based on my experiences, I'll take my chances - so I carry a gun.

In the USA, we prefer dangerous freedom to safe incarceration.
I don't think people in the UK have ever understood that.

Its an interesting model, I the individual choose the right to arm myself.
Or another way of putting it I the individual choose the right to arm the nutcase next to me who will take my life. We are all individuals, but we can stop the arming of the nutcases. We cannot stop them by carrying a gun, because by us carrying a gun we have literally already given one to them.

If I was able to choose I would wear a kevlar vest, because that is real protection, that once worn takes no time to put on and will save my life. As there were in the uk about 25 gun murders in 2015 or 1 in 2.2 million chance of me being shot here, while in the US it is 1 in 23,000 or 74 times greater. And this is just because guns are not restricted, not because of anything else. But I have 69 times greater chance of being killed in a car accident. So I have zero reason to get a gun, ever.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Really? Ever hear about bombs? How about poison gas? How about biological weapons?

These are much easier to make than guns are. Some of Obama's friends did so in the 1960s.

I'm not talking about internet "experts" and YouTube videos; I'm talking about people educated in chemistry, or military ordnance, or infectious-disease control. Millions of them exist.

It doesn't even take this degree of sophistication to kill many people quickly.
All it really takes is an evil imagination. The destructive means are all around us.

We are talking dumb people reacting quickly in a dumb way.
And people with guns shooting others are dumb.

 

[LightLoveHope]

And where do you get this statistic? How often are the incidents of defense reported?
And what defines a gun incident?
A survey conducted in 1993 by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz estimated that more than 1 percent of American adults had used a gun defensively in the past year. This implied something on the order of 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually.
If this is your 1 percent, it's not 1 percent of gun incidents. It's 1 percent of the population.
But no one really keeps accurate count of all the times a gun stops crime but is never fired.
It would be impossible.

There is research on this, but the point is this is an insignificant number.
The significant number is dumb people murdering innocents. How many murdered innocents does it take before guns need to be removed? 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000?
If one says guns kill through homicide a year 8,000 people, over 10 years that is 80,000 people.
I would say that is enough to say something is seriously wrong.

 

[LightLoveHope]

No, you would just have more death. Restrictions on guns doesn't stop killing. It only stops non criminals from having access to the mean to protect themselves.

I can think of hundreds of easier ways to kill hundreds of people than guns. The problem is evil people. No Amount of restriction stops evil doers from murder, only good people with the means to defend against evil doers.
More people died from a couple airplanes deliberately crashed into the twin towers than in any shooting.

When there was a revival in Wales, they did not need police any more, because whole communities walk the straight path.

We are called to walk the straight path, not kill those who might be a threat.

 

[renniks]

There is research on this, but the point is this is an insignificant number.

3 million people is insignificant?
If this statistic is to be believed, it would be over three million people defending themselves every year, because last year the population was about 327 million.

 

[renniks]

There is research on this, but the point is this is an insignificant number.
The significant number is dumb people murdering innocents. How many murdered innocents does it take before guns need to be removed? 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000?
If one says guns kill through homicide a year 8,000 people, over 10 years that is 80,000 people.
I would say that is enough to say something is seriously wrong.

And even with a murder rate well above other developed nations, gun homicides, which account for roughly 12,000 deaths per year in the U.S, are a distant second compared to suicides.

Mass shootings represent a tiny fraction of gun deaths in America. They account for a few hundred deaths every year, as compared to an average of roughly 19,000 gun suicide deaths. There were 23,854 suicides by firearm in 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.



So 3 million crimes prevented by gun ownership doesn't seem so insignificant does it?

 

[renniks]

When there was a revival in Wales, they did not need police any more, because whole communities walk the straight path.

We are called to walk the straight path, not kill those who might be a threat.

I would say you're due for another one, because your crime rate per person is much higher than ours.
Total crimes per 1000,
109.96
Ranked 4th. 3 times more than United States 41.29
Ranked 22nd

 

[Aldebaran]

Gun ownership was never intended to include high capacity firearms, military style etc.etc.

Then should the rest of the Constitution be applied to only what existed at the time it was written? Imagine what that would do to rights under the First Amendment. The internet, TV and radio and any other form of electronic communication could be shut down because the founders never envisioned us having free speech in that way either, and therefore the First Amendment couldn't have been for us to have free speech rights using those methods.

The democrats in Congress used to tell us that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and must change for the times we live in. Is that something they believe applies to all but the Second Amendment?

 

[Jamesone5]

And? You gonna whip me? Lol.
I haven't heard any wisdom from your lips yet... but lots of stereotyping.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

...except the protest in Virginia was peaceful and gun-free. Someone accused you of slander in post #28. That was an accurate accusation. At this point you've just resorted to bold-face lies.

LOL, no guns huh?

"RICHMOND, VIRGINIA - JANUARY 20: Gun rights advocates attend a rally organized by The Virginia Citizens Defense League on Capitol Square near the state capitol building January 20, 2020 in Richmond, Virginia. During elections last year, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam promised to enact sweeping gun control laws in 2020, including limiting handgun purchase to one per month, banning military-style weapons and silencers, allowing localities to ban guns in public spaces and enacting a 'red flag' law so authorities can temporarily seize weapons from someone deemed a threat. While event organizers have asked supporters to show up un-armed, militias and other far-right groups from across the country plan to attend the rally and show their support for gun rights. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)"
Security tight as thousands rally for gun rights at Virginia’s ‘Lobby Day’

Guns were banned from the capitol property perimeter by the governor. Everyone had to comply with that. Also banned:

• sticks
• torches
• poles
• bats
• shields
• helmets
• caustic substances (i.e. pepper spray)
• hazardous materials
• scissors
• razor blades
• needles
• toy guns
• toy weapons
• fireworks
• glass bottles
• laser pointers
• aerosol containers
• baseballs
• softballs
• UAVs/drones or any item that can inflict bodily harm that is visible

All the "brave" so-called 2nd Amendment rights people complied. If guns are regulated more heavily, they have to comply and will comply. They're not bold, they're weak, which is why most of them want guns and worship guns to begin with.

As for "slander", anyone accusing me of slander is a lying moron.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

So we agree on something. And the people should have have guns to defend themselves against the lawless element in society and against those who would abuse their power. History teaches us that without that means of defense, all other rights fall away quickly.

What do we agree on? I don't believe "the people should have guns to defend themselves", at least not in the way you do with little or no regulation.

In any case, my point is that while people with Christian values used MLK day to commemorate the Christian deeds of MLK, others were using the day to divert attention from MLK (out of racism and hate) to gun worship. These are people who value guns SO MUCH as an idol that they chose and went out of their way to do such a thing. That is very telling about a person's values and whether or not they're aligned with God's Will.

 

[Aldebaran]

All the "brave" so-called 2nd Amendment rights people complied. If guns are regulated more heavily, they have to comply and will comply. They're not bold, they're weak, which is why most of them want guns and worship guns to begin with.

Sorry if you are disappointed in the lack of violence.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Sorry if you are disappointed in the lack of violence.

No, I'm glad for it. It is only because the Governor of Virginia is strong and took action as a minister of God to protect the public by banning everything. He also set out his forces of God's Justice to ensure it. You see, when it comes down to it, people with guns may talk and talk about protecting themselves from a government (hypothetically one that is "tyrranical", not that any of them know what that even means) but in reality they cannot and would not ever be able to even begin a fight with the governmental forces that God has put in authority over us.

Any Christian who can read Romans 13 would understand this and wouldn't need it explained over and over.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

No, you would just have more death. Restrictions on guns doesn't stop killing. It only stops non criminals from having access to the mean to protect themselves.

I can think of hundreds of easier ways to kill hundreds of people than guns. The problem is evil people. No Amount of restriction stops evil doers from murder, only good people with the means to defend against evil doers.
More people died from a couple airplanes deliberately crashed into the twin towers than in any shooting.

...says the gun lover who has no stats to back up his incorrect claims

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Well, explain how it works. Explain how someone whose conscience isn’t bothered by eating meat sacrificed to idols could never again eat meat. Because my understanding is that they could, just not around someone who might have an issue with it. So don’t just tell me that’s not how it works, as if that’s a rebuttal. Please, explain.

You have several Christians here who are disturbed by the appearance of racism in this practice of taking a day to commemorate a Christian Black American leader (who led a non-violent movement for the rights of the oppressed) and using that particular, specific day as their day to glorify and celebrate killing weapons, in fact the one type of weapon used to kill the man that the holiday is actually for.

You don't understand how this is an appearance of evil and how these brethren in Christ are bothered by it so other Christians shouldn't do it? If you don't, I can't help you because you lack either reason or discernment, if not both.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

To date, none, but that may change...

She gets death threats in connection with her work.

Buying worthless junk that you never use is the first step to being broke and in debt. I'd imagine you carry tons of debt and can't get out. You should purge things that have no use and recoup whatever you can, cutting your losses. What a tremendous waste of money. Too many Americans are completely inept at managing their personal finances.