Guns are good...

[setmefree]

One thing I want to address here... I'm only comfortable around firearms, and talking about them, because I grew up with them, I was taught firearm safety as soon as I was walking (starting with, don't touch the guns unless daddy is with you and tells you that you can), and it continued as I got older. Even when I got my first BB gun at age 10, I couldn't even touch it unless dad was in the room with me. As soon as I had the hand-eye coordination, I was taught the first rule when you pick up a gun is to make sure it's unloaded, and even if it is unloaded, treat it as though it is loaded. I can talk about it here because that's the subject, but I don't go around volunteering that I like to shoot guns.

I agree 100% about the safety aspect. I took 4 NRA shooting /safety classes before even thinking about buying a gun. If I had my life to live over again I would choose to have a family that knew and taught me about firearms when I was young.

It is great to see how safely the youngsters at the club I shoot at handle firearms. Most of them have been brought up around them and know all the rules.

Our Club also has an NRA youth camp every year that lets kids ( and sometimes for the 1st time their parents) learn the joy of shooting. Obviously safety is the 1st aspect of every event with a better than 2 to 1 ratio of experienced shooters to every kid.
http://www.howellshootingclub.com/Howell_Pictures/Camp_2003/DSC00058.JPG

Our club also does a much smaller event annually called Power 4 Woman. This is just about to take place and here is a quote from our newsletter.

“Power 4 Woman is one of the most vital in terms of real world value and converting anti-second amendment sentiment. The woman that attend are mostly from the inner city and often have never had a positive experience with firearms in their lives; some have had distinctly negative experiences.

One woman with a big smile on her face said. “ Hey that was actually fun! It wasn’t at all what I expected”

I personally have never bragged about owning firearms with the intent of doing harm. Its actually a bad thing to do legally if you ever have to use a gun for self defense. Some District Attorneys will use your bragging as a reason not to believe your claim. (I live near Chicago hardly the most gun friendly place).

I do however tell a lot of people about the shear joy of shooting. I think I have made some people rethink their attitudes of gun owners, when they see that I do it,.

And changing people’s stereotypical ideas of gun ownership is a good thing .

 

[Jim47]

When I was around 8, and my dad was out of town at a Civil War Re-Enactment, a burgler broke into our house. My mom woke up and grabbed an unloaded 9mm and scared the c*r*a*p out of him, literally, when she pointed it at him and told him that if he moved an inch, she would blow his head off. She then walked over to the phone, called the police, and told them that if someone didn't get over there, she was going to blow that guy's head off. The cops came into the house with their guns drawn, and only after they arrested the guy and took him away, did even they realize the 9mm was unloaded.

This is the kind of story I just love to hear, when innocent people beat the bad guys at their own game.

I have talked to people (on the net) from Australlia and South America where they guns rights were taken away, and crime went soaring and people had no way to protect themselves.

Bad guys have no guts at all when faced with someone who also has a gun. They are nothing more than lazy greedy people who want to a free ride.

Another little know fact, the states that have the least gun control also have the least crime.

I don't think I would ever have a reason to get a CCW and carry a hand gun, but I have no problem with those who do need them and have them. I'm simply not afraid of guns. I'm only afraid of the scum who use them to committ crimes.

So why do we need more gun control??????????

Its already a crime to steel, kill, kidnap or take from someone else what doesn't belong to you. This would mean that the criminals don't really comply with the moral laws set down by God, so why are people so stupid to believe that more gun control is going to make us safer?

It would only have the exact opposite affect, cause onnocent poeple who are forbidden by law to own guns would not be able to protect themselves.

My 2 1/2 cents!

 

[lawtonfogle]

that is more worth $2.

 

[Flipper]

I don't think I would ever have a reason to get a CCW and carry a hand gun, but I have no problem with those who do need them and have them. I'm simply not afraid of guns. I'm only afraid of the scum who use them to committ crimes.

Exactly.

I would never carry one either because I know that I can't think quickly enough if I were in a situation where I needed one, and with my luck, it would be taken from me and used against me.

The only "gun control" I'm for is mandatory background checks and waiting periods for ownership. If you have nothing to hide, then it shouldn't bother you. There are people out there who should not easilly own firearms, I'm sorry, and while background checks are not perfect, and if someone wants one badly enough they will get one, it's better than nothing, and I would rather make it difficult for those who shouldn't own one in the first place.

I could argue that I can't see why a civilian should own an automatic with a magazine holding more than 8 shots, but I don't think strongly enough about it to vote for laws pertaining to it. It's just one of those pondering questions I have.

 

[ContraMundum]

Like they used to say in the Old West. "if yer gonna point it at me, you better be prepared to pull trigger."

I don't think they did say that in the Old West. It's line from a Hollywood movie (The Good,The Bad, and The Ugly) and if less people idolised the thugs in Hollywood movies then maybe they'd think twice about forcing their will on others by use of weapons.

I agree with some though- weapons aren't the problem, it's fools with guns. But when you have a society with lots of fools, it's not good to have lots of guns.

However, the right to bear arms is a good thing to have- until it's abused. I personally don't think the society that claims that right (on this thread) is morally mature enough to bear arms. Basically it's a society of many people with bad morals, and it would be safer with more control over weapons. Shooting at the rescuers of the helpless (a-la New Orleans) is pretty low. It's no different to some of the manifold immoral acts that happen in Iraq.

If the society were peppered with more upright people, more honest, less desperate and more responsible people (like the good members of this forum!) then maybe this whole gun topic wouldn't be an issue.

The argument put forward that disarmed societies have increasing crime rates is pure wishful speculation, and not true at all. Crime is on the up everywhere, but down in some more affluent areas too. If an armed populace meant a safe society, then the USA would be the safest nation on earth- and it's one of the least safe. Hence, it's neither having guns or not having them that makes a place crime-ridden, it's what kind of people make up the populace.

Anyway- that's my two cents worth.

 

[ContraMundum]

This is the kind of story I just love to hear, when innocent people beat the bad guys at their own game.

I have talked to people (on the net) from Australlia and South America where they guns rights were taken away, and crime went soaring and people had no way to protect themselves.

Thank goodness people on the net aren't the final authorities.

Australia has a very low crime rate, and certainly cannot compete with the US in terms of gun-related crimes and death.

South America is a continent, and some areas have little or no crime. Columbia and the city of Sao Paolo do not make up the entire continent. Chile and Argentina are pretty safe places.

Incidentaly, China has almost no gun related crime either. Apart from corporate crime and petty theft, it's quite safe. Unarmed populace. To contradistinct that, the old USSR (for most of its existance) had a very heavily armed populace, and very little gun related crime.

It's about the people.

Bad guys have no guts at all when faced with someone who also has a gun.

Don't tell that to police officers who have been shot!

Another little know fact, the states that have the least gun control also have the least crime.

I don't believe that at all. Having been raised in the US (country and city), and also lived in sereral other countries, it's blatantly obvious that the US has an awful lot of crime. I've heard the claim that it has less crime before, but then again I don't believe figures when they don't agree with my eyesight. I know spin when I see it. You can do anything with figures. Just ask Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Besides, you're not trying to tell me that the US has less crime than Switzwerland or Norway, are you? That's just two off the top of my head that I can feel safe walking down the centre of any city after midnight.

So why do we need more gun control??????????

I don't think more gun control would work in the US. It doesn't work now. What they need is a moral facelift in the schools, media and entertainment industry, and a financial and economic facelift to keep people from acts of desperation. Clean up drugs from the streets.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

The right to bear arms is manifold in it's applications in that an armed citizenry is the population's last line of defense against tyranny by their own government, as many believe was one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. They note that many soldiers in the American Revolution were ordinary citizens using their privately owned firearms. It is unrealistic to suppose that private citizens could oppose a government which controls the full power of the US Armed Forces if it became tyrannical.

Invasion by hostile outside forces is another reason gun rights advocates oppose registration. If captured, the associated records would provide invaders with a means of locating and eliminating law-abiding resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers. The risk of the capture of such records is recognized as legitimate; firearms dealers are asked to destroy their records if an invasion is underway. Registration aside, gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. They frequently cite tyrants who claimed to fear invading countries where the citizenry was heavily armed, or that they needed to disarm their own populace to be effective.

 

[ctobola]

Jim,

Thanks for your response. I think this conversation is going down a road that might not be particularly useful for either of us, so I'm going to call it quits. But let me leave you with one word of encouragement...

The Lutheran faith is grounded in the Theology of the Cross, which holds that we live in a broken world where our actions often cannot be cast in simple right and wrong terms. Frequently, we are faced with situations that lead us to decide between wrong and even more wrong.

That idea is presented clearly in the work of Dietrich Bonhöffer, who died in a Nazi jail for trying to assassinate Hitler. To his death, Bonhoeffer declared that trying to kill the Führer was absolutely and undeniably wrong -- but that not trying to stop the slaughter in the concentration camps would be even more wrong.

Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the leading theologians of the 20th century clearly articulated this as well. He was a pacificst who agree that the U.S. had to become involved in WWII and that we had no choice but to drop the A-bomb on Japan. Once again, he held that slaughter of thousands was absolute evil, but it was a lesser evil than doing nothing.

I'm not sure what faith tradition you originally come from, but that moral ambiguity is a part of the way that we as Lutherans understand the world. Even as we are redeemed by Christ in this life, we remain sinners who do evil at every turn, even in our move to do good. (I believe that's how Niebuhr puts it.) That seems to be an issue that you are hesitant to embrace. I'd encourage you to keep trying.

Finally, I want to respond to the last part of your post, when you wrote:

Oh, and wasn't Aristotle an athesist? Why would I consider anything he said?

Why consider anything Aristotle said? Well, I've learned a lot from his writings; and so did a German priest and college professor at the University of Wittenburg. His name was Martin Luther, and one of his primary areas of responibility at the university was teaching the works of Aristotle. You'll find the philosopher's works cited frequently in Luther's works.

In Christ, -Cloy

 

[Jim47]

Jim,

Thanks for your response. I think this conversation is going down a road that might not be particularly useful for either of us, so I'm going to call it quits. But let me leave you with one word of encouragement...

The Lutheran faith is grounded in the Theology of the Cross, which holds that we live in a broken world where our actions often cannot be cast in simple right and wrong terms. Frequently, we are faced with situations that lead us to decide between wrong and even more wrong.

That idea is presented clearly in the work of Dietrich Bonhöffer, who died in a Nazi jail for trying to assassinate Hitler. To his death, Bonhoeffer declared that trying to kill the Führer was absolutely and undeniably wrong -- but that not trying to stop the slaughter in the concentration camps would be even more wrong.

Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the leading theologians of the 20th century clearly articulated this as well. He was a pacificst who agree that the U.S. had to become involved in WWII and that we had no choice but to drop the A-bomb on Japan. Once again, he held that slaughter of thousands was absolute evil, but it was a lesser evil than doing nothing.

I'm not sure what faith tradition you originally come from, but that moral ambiguity is a part of the way that we as Lutherans understand the world. Even as we are redeemed by Christ in this life, we remain sinners who do evil at every turn, even in our move to do good. (I believe that's how Niebuhr puts it.) That seems to be an issue that you are hesitant to embrace. I'd encourage you to keep trying.

Finally, I want to respond to the last part of your post, when you wrote:


Why consider anything Aristotle said? Well, I've learned a lot from his writings; and so did a German priest and college professor at the University of Wittenburg. His name was Martin Luther, and one of his primary areas of responibility at the university was teaching the works of Aristotle. You'll find the philosopher's works cited frequently in Luther's works.

In Christ, -Cloy

I agree its time to quit. I have no use for any of this.

I've been a WELS Lutheran for 50 years, and I am quite confessional. Perhaps you don't know me as well as you think you do??