Christians and Firearms

[partinobodycular]

Hey! Let's not stop there let's ban cars too. More people are killed by cars than by guns.

Well that's a bit of a non sequitur. Americans accept that people will die in various manners, but they weigh the benefits of those activities against that inevitable loss of life, and then do their best to mitigate them. Americans do that with almost everything.

In other words, people choose which deaths they're willing to accept, and in the case of gun deaths Americans have decided that 45,000 gun deaths per year are a perfectly acceptable price to pay. They may care, but they don't care enough to actually do anything about it, they'd rather let them die. It's a conscious choice. When you advocate for gun ownership you're advocating for people to die.

 

[partinobodycular]

If guns, all guns, not just those awful "assault weapons" were banned how would the [benevolent] government ensure that all guns were turned over to the Gov? They would have to illegally enter every home, business etc. every dog house, chicken house, out house and search everywhere and even then they would not find every gun.

The first step is easy, stop the sale of them. But you're not even willing to do that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Since this response has descended into the absurd and ridiculous I'm outta here.
A little more than a half century ago my occupation was helicopter pilot in Viet Nam as a Christian. While there I met a Vietnamese man the same age as myself 28. While conversing with him, he told me he could not remember a time his country was not at war. What many people don't realize prior to the Viet Nam conflict there was never a unified country by any name. The part known as North Vet Nam was communist the area known as South Viet Nam was a Democracy. The north wanted to and finally succeeded in imposing communism on the south by force. In the whole of the area known as North and South Viet Nam there was not one single factory manufacturing guns of any kind, ammunition or any other war material. That all came from China, and other communist countries to assist the communists in their effort to subjugate the south.

I'm from the US and the problem here was the Communist King of England. They met up with the communist US rebels who used commie weapons to fight off the commie redcoats in their dirigibles. I hope that story helps.

 

[Occams Barber]

What many people don't realize prior to the Viet Nam conflict there was never a unified country by any name. The part known as North Vet Nam was communist the area known as South Viet Nam was a Democracy

Vietnamese history did not begin with the Vietnam War. Vietnamese history goes back almost 3,000 years before Christ - much of it as a part of various Chinese dynasties. The north/south split is a relatively recent phenomenon.

OB

 

[Der Alte]

I'm from the US and the problem here was the Communist King of England. They met up with the communist US rebels who used commie weapons to fight off the commie redcoats in their dirigibles. I hope that story helps.

Meaningless scribbling which addresses nothing in this thread.

 

[SkyWriting]

Meaningless scribbling which addresses nothing in this thread.

Ditto.

 

[Der Alte]

Vietnamese history did not begin with the Vietnam War. Vietnamese history goes back almost 3,000 years before Christ - much of it as a part of various Chinese dynasties. The north/south split is a relatively recent phenomenon.
OB

While true not really relevant. What I related was primarily for those who would argue that the Viet Nam conflict was a civil war. It wasn't and it was not even a country.

 

[partinobodycular]

The part known as North Vet Nam was communist the area known as South Viet Nam was a Democracy. The north wanted to and finally succeeded in imposing communism on the south by force. In the whole of the area known as North and South Viet Nam there was not one single factory manufacturing guns of any kind, ammunition or any other war material.

And your insinuation is that this was a bad thing, and that the only reason that this happened is because the south didn't have enough guns.

 

[Der Alte]

And your insinuation is that this was a bad thing, and that the only reason that this happened is because the south didn't have enough guns.

Did you read my posts? My point was V.N. was not a civil war. It was a war of aggression communists in the north trying to and finally succeeding in forcing their brand of communism on the democratic south.

 

[Astrid]

Well that's a bit of a non sequitur. Americans accept that people will die in various manners, but they weigh the benefits of those activities against that inevitable loss of life, and then do their best to mitigate them. Americans do that with almost everything.

In other words, people choose which deaths they're willing to accept, and in the case of gun deaths Americans have decided that 45,000 gun deaths per year are a perfectly acceptable price to pay. They may care, but they don't care enough to actually do anything about it, they'd rather let them die. It's a conscious choice. When you advocate for gun ownership you're advocating for people to die.

I really- really doubt anyone finds he price " perfectlly
acceptable". We could analyze the use of such a phrase,
but maybe you know the why and what of it,

Before you boil the facts down to a phrase-"advocste for
people to die "- shouldnt you toss in all relevant facts?

Who diied, and wny? What are the categories?
Are deaths - by- gun all tragic? Etc.

Advocating for bicycles and bathtubs is also
advocating for people to die. And beer? Sex?

Wouldst do somethjng about it, or let them die?

 

[Neogaia777]

Huh?

Your belief is that western democracy originated in America?

I am saying that what the rest of these nations have become has been greatly influenced by America, and the peaceful conditions they have enjoyed in more recent times because of America, and that they would be something altogether totally different right now without it, yes...

America, could have taken over and dominated the whole entire world after WWII, but we didn't, when anyone else more than likely would have, etc, and I think we should get maybe just a little bit of credit for that, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Well that's a bit of a non sequitur. Americans accept that people will die in various manners, but they weigh the benefits of those activities against that inevitable loss of life, and then do their best to mitigate them. Americans do that with almost everything.

In other words, people choose which deaths they're willing to accept, and in the case of gun deaths Americans have decided that 45,000 gun deaths per year are a perfectly acceptable price to pay. They may care, but they don't care enough to actually do anything about it, they'd rather let them die. It's a conscious choice. When you advocate for gun ownership you're advocating for people to die.

And I'd like to hear just what percentage of those are deliberately violent malevolent acts of violence against other people, etc...

Because when you figure that in, it changes the numbers greatly, etc, and much much more die in vehicle accidents and other things, etc...

And also, by trying to do anything legally about gun ownership in America, your only going to take them away from the good guys, and not the bad ones, who will still very easily be able to have and get them anyway, which could make the situation even more dangerous with more guns deaths instead of less, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Tom 1]

I am saying that what the rest of these nations have become has been greatly influenced by America, and the peaceful conditions they have enjoyed in more recent times because of America, and that they would be something altogether totally different right now without it, yes...

America, could have taken over and dominated the whole entire world after WWII, but we didn't, when anyone else more than likely would have, etc, and I think we should get maybe just a little bit of credit for that, etc...

God Bless!

Maybe ditch the comics and read some actual history books.

 

[Neogaia777]

Maybe ditch the comics and read some actual history books.

Are you disagreeing with what I said...?

Yes or No...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And I'd like to hear just what percentage of those are deliberately violent malevolent acts of violence against other people, etc...

Because when you figure that in, it changes the numbers greatly, etc, and much much more die in vehicle accidents and other things, etc...

And also, by trying to do anything legally about gun ownership in America, your only going to take them away from the good guys, and not the bad ones, who will still very easily be able to have and get them anyway, which could make the situation even more dangerous with more guns deaths instead of less, etc...

God Bless!

The great majority of gun deaths are suicides don't you know...

And only a very small percentage are actual gun deaths of extreme and deliberate gun deaths or acts of extreme violence against other people, etc...

Much, much more die in a lot of other ways every year, etc...

So yes, for those rights, it's a price we are willing to pay right now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And you know the real culprit of the acts of these select few is society and the way it going/heading right now, etc...

And I also blame the ones who are only seeking to further take advantage of that and only further divide it as well, etc...

Those are the real ones you should blame in these minority of cases that do actually happen sometimes, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Tom 1]

Are you disagreeing with what I said...?

Yes or No...?

God Bless!

Disagree isn’t really the right word. I don’t ‘disagree’ that my dogs could set up a debating society. There’s a lot that makes the US a great country, but your comments step over from the reality of what is great about it into some sort of fantasy land. What’s the point in that?

 

[Neogaia777]

Disagree isn’t really the right word. I don’t ‘disagree’ that my dogs could set up a debating society. There’s a lot that makes the US a great country, but your comments step over from the reality of what is great about it into some sort of fantasy land. What’s the point in that?

How so...?

How does my comments just now step into some kind of "fantasy land", etc...?

Because I think they are pretty "spot on" and your just upset about it, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Disagree isn’t really the right word. I don’t ‘disagree’ that my dogs could set up a debating society. There’s a lot that makes the US a great country, but your comments step over from the reality of what is great about it into some sort of fantasy land. What’s the point in that?

And America and Americans are "dogs" right now, etc...?

Ok, then what about my comments if it had been anyone else then...?

Care to say anything about that maybe...?

Think they would have stopped short of taking over the entire world, etc...?

I'd really like to hear what you think, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Tom 1]

And America and Americans are "dogs" right now, etc...?

Don’t be silly.

Of course I don’t mean Americans are ‘dogs’. As I said, in my actual post, America is a great country.

Notions like ‘America could have taken over the world’ and so on however come from some kind of dreamworld that has no attachment to the real world. The US has played its role in history, as have many other countries, in taking the world in what is probably the best possible direction. That’s no reason to go off the deep end into LaLa Land.