Guns

[TwistTim]

Who decides who's sane and who's normal?

How do we know the Mental Patients won't escape, over run the doctors, and throw the sane people in the Insane Asylums? (would explain the French Revolution no?)

Besides why trust something that's not science by any definition of science and who's founders wanted to either Cure Christians of Christianity, were into New Age/Buddhism or otherwise wanted to excuse themselves and condemn others?

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Firearms are technology.

Like any technology, it can be used for good or ill. It is the intent of the user that determines whether or not that is the case.

 

[Vigilante]

It was stated in another thread that "Guns are Immoral" but not explained why or given reason. Discuss your thoughts, the discussion also includes Gun Control and your thoughts of how far it should extend if at all.

Whoever said guns are immoral needs to reexamine their ethics.

Only actions can be moral or immoral. Actions tie the sin to the sinner. To say that any particular gun is a sin (is immoral) is incoherent. Who bears the responsibility of this sin? There can be no responsibility without an action. You would be better off claiming that building guns (an action) is immoral, but even then you're on shakey ground. In the Old Testament, the Israelites killed thousands under God's directive. They did this with weapons crafted by their own people.

As far as the utility of firearms is concerned, yes, firearms have been used illegitimately. But they are used far more often for lawful purposes than unlawful ones:

"Firearms are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun."

"Motor-vehicle accidents, drowning, suffocation, and fires each kill more children under the age of fifteen than do firearms." (Source for both quotes: Second Ammendment Foundation Online - saf.org)

Even if one decided he or she would always hate guns, their efforts to save lives would be better spent on other dangers.

Furthermore, the main reason we were given the 2nd Ammendment is for the purpose of fighting our government, not fighting criminals (though this is also a legitimate use). The only reason our founding fathers were able to escape the tyranny of the British was with the use of guns. We are supposed to be able to have guns in order to fight off our own government.

Think about it. If all of the Jewish (and sympathizing) citizens in Europe during the '30s and '40s had guns, how much of a problem would this have been for the Nazi occupation? Huge. Untrained Iraqi citizens with guns have caused all kinds of problems for the US government in recent years--and we're the number one superpower in the world.

It is almost impossible for a tyrant to emerge in the shadow of an armed populace. A well-regulated militia is the best check and balance of all.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Guns are fun.

 

[waywardone]

hmm....well if you ask me, the basis for something that is dead and lifeless like a rifle really can't have morals. Morals are something reserved for the living with free will, so guns can't be. As far as them being used as weapons, I have to disagree, I mean God gave us the ability to comprehend and invent so they can't be that bad. After all, he did put the animals on the earth to consume right? hmmmm...... I guess at the end of the day, the immoral ones are ourselves, since we as humans pull the trigger and cause the hurt.

 

[runforyerlife]

There is a study that about 80% of the victims of wars are killed through small arms like pistols, riffles or mp's. I dont think that weapons per se are inmoral, but they are far too often used in an inmoral way.

 

[Suomipoika]

Why would acknowledging that there could be at least a small chance of more guns per household (29% in the U.S. compared to the 4% of Europe on average) leading into more gun-related violence be any more difficult than acknowledging that more cars on our roads could possibly lead into more traffic accidents? After all, the rate for assaults/threats doesn't differ that much between Europe and the U.S., but those incidents end up as homicides 5 times more often in the States than in Europe. (EU ICS analysis 2005) Why does roughly the same number of assaults cause fatalities so much more often in the States?

Okay, yet there aren't many who would consider regulating car ownership on the basis that there's a correlation between the number of cars on the roads and the number of traffic accidents. And, on the other hand, 'car ownership' isn't the national pride of any specific country either, as far as I know.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Define gun-related violence.

Is gun-related violence a bad thing?

 

[Blackguard_]

Why does roughly the same number of assaults cause fatalities so much more often in the States?

Becasue "assault" as used here is a vague term that could anything from "drunkenly swinging your fist at someone" to "scuffle with some toughs" to "emptying a 30 round mag into somebody". That is, not all assault is attempted murder, and Europe does not have the gang and drug culture of violence the US has. There is more murder here because more people try to commit murder here.
And yes, I have no doubt aceess to guns does play a part.

Is gun-related violence a bad thing?

Yeah, that's one of the odd things about many anti-gunners, they don't seem to care how people die, as long as it's not by a gun.

 

[Suomipoika]

Becasue "assault" as used here is a vague term that could anything from "drunkenly swinging your fist at someone" to "scuffle with some toughs" to "emptying a 30 round mag into somebody". That is, not all assault is attempted murder, and Europe does not have the gang and drug culture of violence the US has. There is more murder here because more people try to commit murder here.
And yes, I have no doubt aceess to guns does play a part.

Well, I guess I won't say anything too firm in either direction before I really preoccupy myself in the world of some extensive cross-statistic analyses.

Yeah, that's one of the odd things about many anti-gunners, they don't seem to care how people die, as long as it's not by a gun.

Even from a spectator's viewpoint, I think that this in turn is a very populistic statement from the pro-side aimed at skirting the issue.

 

[Suomipoika]

Furthermore, the main reason we were given the 2nd Ammendment is for the purpose of fighting our government, not fighting criminals (though this is also a legitimate use). The only reason our founding fathers were able to escape the tyranny of the British was with the use of guns. We are supposed to be able to have guns in order to fight off our own government.

Think about it. If all of the Jewish (and sympathizing) citizens in Europe during the '30s and '40s had guns, how much of a problem would this have been for the Nazi occupation? Huge. Untrained Iraqi citizens with guns have caused all kinds of problems for the US government in recent years--and we're the number one superpower in the world.

It is almost impossible for a tyrant to emerge in the shadow of an armed populace. A well-regulated militia is the best check and balance of all.

How seriously do you view the possibility of the people of America having to arm themselves for an armed conflict with their own government in today's world?

 

[Sketcher]

How seriously do you view the possibility of the people of America having to arm themselves for an armed conflict with their own government in today's world?

Governments aren't any less likely to deny people their rights in this day and age. We've seen so many dictatorships in the 20th century, and there are more of them forming in the 21st.

 

[Suomipoika]

Governments aren't any less likely to deny people their rights in this day and age. We've seen so many dictatorships in the 20th century, and there are more of them forming in the 21st.

Dictatorships in sight, in the U.S.? Wouldn't that mean that it is a 'democratically elected dictatorship', knowing your system?

How about Romans 13, then? I see it ardently cited in the death penalty threads, but how about in this context?

"1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing".

So what about "getting up in arms against the government" in the light of this God-breathed Scripture? What about the American revolution?

You can take as much of this as irony as/if you want to.

 

[Tuffguy]

How seriously do you view the possibility of the people of America having to arm themselves for an armed conflict with their own government in today's world?

It is always a threat no matter what the government or institution. If you where a theif and could walk into anyones house with 100% confidence that they where unarmed.... it would greatly increase the "attractiveness" of you walking into that house.

The responsiblity of our government is to protect its citizens against international forces. It is the citizens responsibility to protect ourselves from our government.

 

[Suomipoika]

If you where a theif and could walk into anyones house with 100% confidence that they where unarmed.... it would greatly increase the "attractiveness" of you walking into that house.

Yes, but you don't democratically vote 'your thieves' into 'their offices', but you do have a say on the formation of your government.

 

[joanna1]

Yes, but you don't democratically vote 'your thieves' into 'their offices', but you do have a say on the formation of your government.

But sometimes - cough florida cough- election results are a little bit

and a person you elected goes off the rails... not that that has prompted citizens to make use of their weapons against the government in the past - and considering the imbalance in the forces (miltary on the one side, handguns on the other) i doubt whether it would be very effective anyway.

 

[Suomipoika]

And besides, I think that the only signs of some sort of 'dictatorship' ideology you can perceive in American politics at the moment are, in fact, the so-called Christian 'reconstructionalists' who would like to reinstate the Mosaic Law into today's society (executing all practicing homosexuals etc.). Well, you never know if the Antichrist will rise from the liberal Democrat camp, though.

 

[rustypjr]

Guns... Man what to say about guns. First do I own any? Yes I have them for several reasons. I have 2 12 gauges for duck, dove hunting. I have a 20 gauge for home prtection. I have a 16 gauge because it is purty. I have a 410 my dad gave me when I was 9. I have a 22 that I like to go out and shoot for fun. I have a 30-30 and a 30-06 for big game huntin. I have a 22 pistol for fun shooting. I ahave a 9mm that is for fun and home prtection. Oh and I got a couple more shotguns in the back closet incase war breaks out in Mississippi. Now do I like gun? I do. do I think gins are safe? Yes if you take Hunters Ed and are taught how to handle one properly. Do guns kill people? No the idiots pulling the trigger does. Would I ever use a gun on somebody? You break in my house inthe middle of the night where my 7 month pregnant wife is sleeping and find out. Now on Gun control...... If you take the guns away form law abiding citizens who is going to be left with guns? Criminals. they already break the law so by making a new law taking away guns ohh yes they will just turn theres in and give up. No then you will not be able to protect yourself and criminal will run everything. But hey your choice. I will keep my guns. And in the words of a famous man "You can have my guns when you pry them out of my cold dead hands."

 

[Tuffguy]

Yes, but you don't democratically vote 'your thieves' into 'their offices', but you do have a say on the formation of your government.

First off. America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Demo is Latin for majority or mob rule. That not the form of government we have.

You are correct,, we do vote people into office, so we do have say in what they do by election. However, there has been a very horrible and destructive pattern developing by "executive orders" that come from the president. Those orders bypass congress and our entire system of checks and balances.

Congress is supposed to vote on declarations of war. Congress hasn't had the chance to vote on a war in 50 years! Its very screwed up.

 

[Suomipoika]

First off. America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Demo is Latin for majority or mob rule. That not the form of government we have.

You are correct,, we do vote people into office, so we do have say in what they do by election. However, there has been a very horrible and destructive pattern developing by "executive orders" that come from the president. Those orders bypass congress and our entire system of checks and balances.

Congress is supposed to vote on declarations of war. Congress hasn't had the chance to vote on a war in 50 years! Its very screwed up.

Just wait a second.. the word 'democracy' comes from Greek (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people", and kratos, "rule"). Who told you that 'demo joke'? Don't swallow everything. Else we would have a mob rule up here... and you knew at least that we don't have a mob rule up here didn't you? And how about the desire of your republican president to spread democracy around the world? Don't try to create a pseudo-dichotomy between 'republic' and 'democracy' based on a joke! I just might agree with the latter part of your post, about the president's authority to decide on going to war.

(With a little googling, I found a latin verb 'demo' that means: "to take away, subtract." So it just might have been someone trying to 'find out' the meaning of democracy 'themselves', without turning to the real information that is already easily available. -> Imagination + Biased intentions + Ignorant audience + Rhetoric skills = Deepening of ignorance)