Why are you for or against gun control

[SgtBen]

Hi ben,

Right! All well and good and I'm 100% in agreement with your claim. But, while you're out gathering together all the murderers and would be murderers together to attend your classes on personal responsibility and self-control -------- people are dying! While you're beating on the doors of your legislature to make you work harder to do your job -------- people are dying!

Listen, God,- let me repeat that in case someone isn't paying attention - God established a nation of people. He gave them laws and ordinances to regulate personal responsibility and self-control. Have you any idea what happened after He did? Doesn't anyone else see the futility in our trying to think to imagine that we can change social values and each individual's idea of personal responsibility and self-control? If there was even such a class for that, and of course, we'd be 100 years bickering over what is or isn't proper self-control and personal responsibility to teach people, do you think to imagine how to teach everyone such ideas. You do know, don't you, that the bible is out there. There is already a lesson plan showing how we should live and what are proper moral values. How's that working out for you guys?

You're a police officer. You see the problem. Has your city or county set up a lesson plan to teach everyone this idea of personal responsibility and self-control? What's their plan for those who don't want to put these 'proper' teachings in their day to day living?

I laugh at christians who think the answer to this problem is teaching people self-control and discipline and personal responsibility. God did that! And the Scriptures are filled with His crying out to His people that He gave that law to, "Why are you such stiff necked people?" He has told us that man's heart is wicked and you're going to fix that with some training in self-control and discipline and personal responsibility?

Friend, we are a nation of over 300 million people and such ideas that we can just change people's attitudes and firearms can be just as safe as down pillows seems utterly ludicrous to me. Further, if that's really all it would take, then we're also a nation of complete idiots because we haven't fixed the problem yet.

Here's my prophecy. As long as firearms are readily and fairly easily available to people, a lot of folks are going die. Now, that's ok with me personally. I won't be the one doing the killing and I don't expect to be the one on the other end of the weapon, but a lot of people are suffering the pain and anguish of lost loved ones because we have to have our firearms.

So, go ahead and work at teaching everyone self discipline and self control and personal responsibility, but mark my words, the only solution to this problem is to get rid of the firearms.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You're preaching to the choir, friend. Get us some dang help and turn parents into REAL PARENTS -- not video game suppliers.

 

[miamited]

You're preaching to the choir, friend. Get us some dang help and turn parents into REAL PARENTS -- not video game suppliers.

Hi ben,

But you can't do that! You can't make parents be 'real' parents. You've got a human resources department - if help is what you need then go to them and get it! Is that really your best response to the problem. Do you really believe that there isn't enough 'help' out there and that's why people are dying? There aren't enough police officers; there isn't enough money; there's not enough legislation; there isn't enough law enforcement. Really?

Friend, listen. This is what I know. Japan, Great Britain, Canada are all nations living in the here and now with large populations of people and reasonably fair and equitable governance and they don't have our problem. They found that the answer isn't about getting more police or getting more money. They seem to have found that the answer is about doing the best they can to keep firearms out of the hands of the general public. Is that a perfect answer? No! Of course not. But it's a lot better than what we have.

People die from firearms in Japan, but you can count the annual tally on your fingers and toes most years. People die in Great Britain by firearms, but it's the exception rather than the rule. People die in Canada by firearms, but it's a much smaller ratio than here in the U.S. They are all nations of people. The same people for which God's word tells us are filled with wicked hearts. In all three of those countries christian religion isn't nearly as strong as it is here, so it doesn't seem that God's moral values is what is making the difference.

I'm with you! It's all about lack of personal values and moral responsibility, but that's something that you can't train into human beings. If you could, God would have done it, and we'd all be destined for salvation.

So, the question is, even though we can say 'why' people kill each other, how do we stop it? The only option for which there seems to be quite a bit of evidence actually works, is to get rid of the firearms.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi brian,

You wrote:

Cain smashed Able over the head with a rock. Your solution won't work.

Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not trying to provide a solution to murder, just to the carnage of firearms violence. I'd be just happy as a pea if all I had to worry about is some guy picking up a rock and smashing my head in. He'd have to be standing right beside me and I'd have at least a fighting chance to defend myself or duck out of the way. Similarly with a knife. The perpetrator would have to be pretty much within arms length unless he was particularly proficient at knife throwing. I'd have a fairly good chance of defending myself or even running away after the first strike. Just imagine how many people would have died in that nightclub if the perpetrator had walked in with only a rock and a knife. How many school kids would have died if the perpetrator was counting on just a knife or a sword or machete to wield.

So, don't kid yourself or waste you time chasing through rabbit holes if the best defense you can muster is, 'well, there's other ways of killing people'. Sure there are! But most of those ways only work well if you are only trying to kill one person. If you're working on killing more than that, you're likely going to need some assistance or have your victims tied up. All of which are possible, but a whole lot less likely. President Kennedy was killed with a firearm from a couple of thousand feet away. All the guy in that nightclub had to do was just walk through calmly and just keep pulling the trigger. He didn't even have to aim much since he just wanted to kill everyone. Similarly, the school shootings and other mass murders were perpetrated by people who, evidence seems to indicate, just calmly walked about pulling the trigger on a firearm and bang! bang! people are dead!

How many people do you think Dylan Roof would have killed if he went into that church with just knife in his pocket? How about those two kids at Columbine? What would their tally have added up to if they were only armed with rocks and machetes?

Yes, people are going to kill people and my effort here isn't about ending murder. However, the mass murder phenomenon; the activity that we see repeating itself pretty much every week in this country is done generally carried out with firearms and more specifically, automatic firearms.

However, having said all of that, the evidence does also seem to show that strict firearms regulations does also bring down the overall murder rate in general. As I wrote in an earlier post, killing with a knife, rock, machete, etc. has to be done with a lot more personal involvement. It has to be done up close and in your face. You can't just stand around pulling a little trigger and watching people drop. You have to chase each victim down and generally are going to have to stab them or hit them several times to kill them.

Listen, you guys are welcome to believe what you believe to be the truth. But surely you can come up with better rebuttals than, 'well, people are still going to kill somehow!'

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[SgtBen]

I've already discussed it in an earlier post.

 

[Cimorene]

For.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

So, don't kid yourself or waste you time chasing through rabbit holes if the best defense you can muster is, 'well, there's other ways of killing people'. Sure there are! But most of those ways only work well if you are only trying to kill one person.

Bombs and 747s work well for mass killings.

 

[Mudinyeri]

How many people do you think Dylan Roof would have killed if he went into that church with just knife in his pocket? How about those two kids at Columbine? What would their tally have added up to if they were only armed with rocks and machetes?

What if they were armed with propane tanks and ... oh, wait, never mind.

Yes, people are going to kill people and my effort here isn't about ending murder. However, the mass murder phenomenon; the activity that we see repeating itself pretty much every week in this country is done generally carried out with firearms and more specifically, automatic firearms.

Wrong. Far more people have been "mass murdered" by airplanes and truck bombs. Now, in your defense, one of the largest mass killings in our country's history was perpetrated with firearms ... by our own government.

Moreover, I find it interesting that you aren't concerned about ending murder. More people are not-mass-murdered in Chicago every year than in any mass shooting since Wounded Knee. Why does it only matter if people are killed in groups?

However, having said all of that, the evidence does also seem to show that strict firearms regulations does also bring down the overall murder rate in general.

Actually, the CDC produced a report showing that there was no conclusive evidence that "gun control" laws had any effect whatsoever on violent crime.

Listen, you guys are welcome to believe what you believe to be the truth. But surely you can come up with better rebuttals than, 'well, people are still going to kill somehow!'

And you, too, are welcome to believe what you've convinced yourself is the truth but the facts don't bear out your beliefs.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi mudinyeri,

You responded: What if they were armed with propane tanks and ... oh, wait, never mind.

As I said, people will kill people. It's a given. There is no nation and no governmental form of control that has ever been able to say that no one within their borders was ever murdered. However, there are many nations and many forms of governmental controls that can say that they've taken steps to minimize the risk and the historical facts would seem to prove that they are correct. If Utopia is what you are seeking, you won't find it on the earth. I'm not striving for some utopian idea of a perfect world where no one dies at the hands of another. I'm merely searching for ways that risk can be minimized.

I know that every day I take my life into my hands when I get behind the wheel of my vehicle. Now, I can choose not to drive or ride in a vehicle for the rest of my life, thereby ensuring that I won't die in a vehicle accident, unless, of course, I'm run over. Or, I can minimize my risk by wearing my seat belt and being careful to keep my attention on what's going on around me at all times as I drive. Does this mean that I won't ever die in a vehicle accident? Of course not! But it does mean that I've taken steps to reduce the risk. That's all I'm seeking here. Some reasonable and attainable steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of mass murders and all murders by firearms which is our greatest killer as regards murder.

You also replied: Moreover, I find it interesting that you aren't concerned about ending murder.

Well, you shouldn't be so 'interested' by that understanding that you have gleaned because it isn't true. I'm all for reducing all firearms violence and death. All of the information that I have provided regarding firearms controls in other nations and the body counts associated with those controls has been about total firearms deaths. However, in the light of mass murders we find that firearms are generally the weapon of choice because they allow quick and deadly force with minimum effort and maximum kill range. It is these mass murders that get everyone's attention focused on the problem. We read of various and sundry firearms deaths in hundreds of cities across the nation every day, but no one ever gets particularly worked up about them. But, when someone commits some atrocious mass murder, then everyone and their brother gets all worked up and starts asking, "What are we going to do to protect ourselves?" I'm just offering an answer to that question.

People may not like my answer and people may not believe my answer to be a workable solution, but...

The evidence; the factual number crunching of peoples who reside in various nations and under various governmental systems with various weapons controls shows a distinctive corollary that the more strict a government is about the general populous having access to firearms, the fewer firearms deaths there are. It's just a fairly clear, to me, correlation. Others obviously don't agree or apparently see, the correlation.

You also responded: Actually, the CDC produced a report showing that there was no conclusive evidence that "gun control" laws had any effect whatsoever on violent crime.

Well, I have great respect for the CDC and the job they do in diagnosing and helping to identify, prevent and working towards curing biological 'diseases'. However, this issue is just a bit out of their purview. I'd want to look at their study and how they came up with their determination because the evidence that I've provided, which has been available to all for years, shows a very sure correlation. It must also be noted that their report says that there is no conclusive evidence. Here's the report summary: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

If you read this report carefully you'll find that the study turned out to be pretty much a waste of taxpayer monies. They couldn't confirm or deny anything that they looked into as being some help with the problem. They did give us some small insight into 'how' things 'might' come about, but the entire report is filled with 'inconclusive' findings. They weren't able to determine if background checks were of any benefit or anything else that has been discussed regarding firearms controls. They apparently did do some comparison to the U.S. and Canada controls and guess what? Their findings were 'inconclusive'. So, according to the CDC report, we might as well just sit around and do nothing. Too bad, so sad your loved one was murdered, but there's nothing we can do to help.

Finally, you wrote: And you, too, are welcome to believe what you've convinced yourself is the truth but the facts don't bear out your beliefs.

Thanks, but I obviously disagree with your understanding of what the 'facts' bear out.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[razzelflabben]

You're welcome, and thanks for reading my post.

Also as a law enforcement officer, I'd rather see one dead bad guy and six live family members in a home invasion than the opposite.

It's a hell of a lot easier to calm a family down than it is to bury them. Pardon my language but I got real strong feelings about this topic.

having lost a son (accident, none vehicle) I understand what you are saying and respect it more than you know. I really am thrilled that you chimed in and would love to hear everything you want to say on the issue.

 

[Mudinyeri]

They weren't able to determine if background checks were of any benefit or anything else that has been discussed regarding firearms controls. They apparently did do some comparison to the U.S. and Canada controls and guess what? Their findings were 'inconclusive'.

On this we agree. Despite the amount of time, effort and expense spent on the study ... despite how much the CDC believes that guns are a "health epidemic" ... they still couldn't find conclusive evidence that regulating guns has any effect on violent crime.

I wonder why that was ....

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi ben,

Right! All well and good and I'm 100% in agreement with your claim. But, while you're out gathering together all the murderers and would be murderers together to attend your classes on personal responsibility and self-control -------- people are dying! While you're beating on the doors of your legislature to make you work harder to do your job -------- people are dying!

Listen, God,- let me repeat that in case someone isn't paying attention - God established a nation of people. He gave them laws and ordinances to regulate personal responsibility and self-control. Have you any idea what happened after He did? Doesn't anyone else see the futility in our trying to think to imagine that we can change social values and each individual's idea of personal responsibility and self-control? If there was even such a class for that, and of course, we'd be 100 years bickering over what is or isn't proper self-control and personal responsibility to teach people, do you think to imagine how to teach everyone such ideas. You do know, don't you, that the bible is out there. There is already a lesson plan showing how we should live and what are proper moral values. How's that working out for you guys?

You're a police officer. You see the problem. Has your city or county set up a lesson plan to teach everyone this idea of personal responsibility and self-control? What's their plan for those who don't want to put these 'proper' teachings in their day to day living?

I laugh at christians who think the answer to this problem is teaching people self-control and discipline and personal responsibility. God did that! And the Scriptures are filled with His crying out to His people that He gave that law to, "Why are you such stiff necked people?" He has told us that man's heart is wicked and you're going to fix that with some training in self-control and discipline and personal responsibility?

Friend, we are a nation of over 300 million people and such ideas that we can just change people's attitudes and firearms can be just as safe as down pillows seems utterly ludicrous to me. Further, if that's really all it would take, then we're also a nation of complete idiots because we haven't fixed the problem yet.

Here's my prophecy. As long as firearms are readily and fairly easily available to people, a lot of folks are going die. Now, that's ok with me personally. I won't be the one doing the killing and I don't expect to be the one on the other end of the weapon, but a lot of people are suffering the pain and anguish of lost loved ones because we have to have our firearms.

So, go ahead and work at teaching everyone self discipline and self control and personal responsibility, but mark my words, the only solution to this problem is to get rid of the firearms.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I know this isn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to respond anyway. In our current church, there is a lot of fear. The result of that fear is security measures that make our family uncomfortable because we don't see it as something a true believer should do or be. IOW's trust God, stop living in fear, stop worrying when you gather for worship that some random gunman would come in and shoot the place up. That being said, not only the church is full of unbelievers, but the world is too. As such, not everyone can walk around spouting scripture and expect everyone to follow the plan. If we could, there wouldn't be any bad guys around in the first place.

Personally, when I die, I don't care how I go. In fact, I think it would kind of be an honor to go out for my faith. But if someone is sitting in the sanctuary with a concealed gun and is properly trained to use it, takes the gunman out before dozens of people are murdered, some of which have never believed unto salvation, I say go for it. You see, we shouldn't approach this discussion from our perspective alone, and if we want to throw scripture at it, from the believers perspective alone. Rather we need to approach the topic from the standpoint of what works best for the most people who all need a Savior. Your post seems to miss that lesson in scripture.

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi mudinyeri,

You responded: What if they were armed with propane tanks and ... oh, wait, never mind.

As I said, people will kill people. It's a given. There is no nation and no governmental form of control that has ever been able to say that no one within their borders was ever murdered. However, there are many nations and many forms of governmental controls that can say that they've taken steps to minimize the risk and the historical facts would seem to prove that they are correct. If Utopia is what you are seeking, you won't find it on the earth. I'm not striving for some utopian idea of a perfect world where no one dies at the hands of another. I'm merely searching for ways that risk can be minimized.

I know that every day I take my life into my hands when I get behind the wheel of my vehicle. Now, I can choose not to drive or ride in a vehicle for the rest of my life, thereby ensuring that I won't die in a vehicle accident, unless, of course, I'm run over. Or, I can minimize my risk by wearing my seat belt and being careful to keep my attention on what's going on around me at all times as I drive. Does this mean that I won't ever die in a vehicle accident? Of course not! But it does mean that I've taken steps to reduce the risk. That's all I'm seeking here. Some reasonable and attainable steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of mass murders and all murders by firearms which is our greatest killer as regards murder.

You also replied: Moreover, I find it interesting that you aren't concerned about ending murder.

Well, you shouldn't be so 'interested' by that understanding that you have gleaned because it isn't true. I'm all for reducing all firearms violence and death. All of the information that I have provided regarding firearms controls in other nations and the body counts associated with those controls has been about total firearms deaths. However, in the light of mass murders we find that firearms are generally the weapon of choice because they allow quick and deadly force with minimum effort and maximum kill range. It is these mass murders that get everyone's attention focused on the problem. We read of various and sundry firearms deaths in hundreds of cities across the nation every day, but no one ever gets particularly worked up about them. But, when someone commits some atrocious mass murder, then everyone and their brother gets all worked up and starts asking, "What are we going to do to protect ourselves?" I'm just offering an answer to that question.

People may not like my answer and people may not believe my answer to be a workable solution, but...

The evidence; the factual number crunching of peoples who reside in various nations and under various governmental systems with various weapons controls shows a distinctive corollary that the more strict a government is about the general populous having access to firearms, the fewer firearms deaths there are. It's just a fairly clear, to me, correlation. Others obviously don't agree or apparently see, the correlation.

You also responded: Actually, the CDC produced a report showing that there was no conclusive evidence that "gun control" laws had any effect whatsoever on violent crime.

Well, I have great respect for the CDC and the job they do in diagnosing and helping to identify, prevent and working towards curing biological 'diseases'. However, this issue is just a bit out of their purview. I'd want to look at their study and how they came up with their determination because the evidence that I've provided, which has been available to all for years, shows a very sure correlation. It must also be noted that their report says that there is no conclusive evidence. Here's the report summary: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

If you read this report carefully you'll find that the study turned out to be pretty much a waste of taxpayer monies. They couldn't confirm or deny anything that they looked into as being some help with the problem. They did give us some small insight into 'how' things 'might' come about, but the entire report is filled with 'inconclusive' findings. They weren't able to determine if background checks were of any benefit or anything else that has been discussed regarding firearms controls. They apparently did do some comparison to the U.S. and Canada controls and guess what? Their findings were 'inconclusive'. So, according to the CDC report, we might as well just sit around and do nothing. Too bad, so sad your loved one was murdered, but there's nothing we can do to help.

Finally, you wrote: And you, too, are welcome to believe what you've convinced yourself is the truth but the facts don't bear out your beliefs.

Thanks, but I obviously disagree with your understanding of what the 'facts' bear out.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

the problem with your stats is they are inconsistent with other stats on the same websites as well as other websites, which means someone is manipulating stats. Which in terms means that basing all your understanding on the stats alone is you agreeing to willingly submit yourself to manipulation and being unwilling to do anything to stop that manipulation. Now, that is your choice to make, but personally, I don't like to be manipulated, thus I want more than contradictory stats to base my opinions on and comments from a law enforcement officer who is right out there in the line of fire so to speak speaks volumes to me personally.

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi brian,

You wrote:


Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not trying to provide a solution to murder, just to the carnage of firearms violence. I'd be just happy as a pea if all I had to worry about is some guy picking up a rock and smashing my head in. He'd have to be standing right beside me and I'd have at least a fighting chance to defend myself or duck out of the way. Similarly with a knife. The perpetrator would have to be pretty much within arms length unless he was particularly proficient at knife throwing. I'd have a fairly good chance of defending myself or even running away after the first strike. Just imagine how many people would have died in that nightclub if the perpetrator had walked in with only a rock and a knife. How many school kids would have died if the perpetrator was counting on just a knife or a sword or machete to wield.

I find it odd that you would want to ban fire arms because bad guys have fire arms and people could get hurt, but you would want a rock if someone wanted to kill you with a rock so you could defend yourself...etc. IOW's this seems like such a double standard to me that I don't know if I can take the rest of this post seriously...I will try, just saying...

So, don't kid yourself or waste you time chasing through rabbit holes if the best defense you can muster is, 'well, there's other ways of killing people'. Sure there are! But most of those ways only work well if you are only trying to kill one person. If you're working on killing more than that, you're likely going to need some assistance or have your victims tied up. All of which are possible, but a whole lot less likely. President Kennedy was killed with a firearm from a couple of thousand feet away. All the guy in that nightclub had to do was just walk through calmly and just keep pulling the trigger. He didn't even have to aim much since he just wanted to kill everyone. Similarly, the school shootings and other mass murders were perpetrated by people who, evidence seems to indicate, just calmly walked about pulling the trigger on a firearm and bang! bang! people are dead!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/1...s-was-machete-wielding-terrorists-target.html apparently mass attacks are also done with machetties. But what is more interesting, if someone there had pulled a gun, using it properly as per most of the posts on this thread are in favor of, at least, that is minimum 2 people would have avoided injury.

This story was big around here, one of my husbands friends are close friends with one of the injured people.

How many people do you think Dylan Roof would have killed if he went into that church with just knife in his pocket? How about those two kids at Columbine? What would their tally have added up to if they were only armed with rocks and machetes?

Yes, people are going to kill people and my effort here isn't about ending murder. However, the mass murder phenomenon; the activity that we see repeating itself pretty much every week in this country is done generally carried out with firearms and more specifically, automatic firearms.

However, having said all of that, the evidence does also seem to show that strict firearms regulations does also bring down the overall murder rate in general. As I wrote in an earlier post, killing with a knife, rock, machete, etc. has to be done with a lot more personal involvement. It has to be done up close and in your face. You can't just stand around pulling a little trigger and watching people drop. You have to chase each victim down and generally are going to have to stab them or hit them several times to kill them.

Listen, you guys are welcome to believe what you believe to be the truth. But surely you can come up with better rebuttals than, 'well, people are still going to kill somehow!'

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

as repeatedly as has been said and gone unaddressed by you, the stats are inconsistent thus unreliable, you are free to offer more, even encouraged to do so

 

[Mudinyeri]

apparently mass attacks are also done with machetties.

Even with a gun (or guns), it may take a while to kill a machete-wielding attacker.

Caution, the linked video may be disturbing to some viewers: http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Ex...-Police-After-Fatally-Stabbing-Officer-104299

 

[razzelflabben]

Even with a gun (or guns), it may take a while to kill a machete-wielding attacker.

why do we want to kill him? I'm confused again...who wants to kill anyone? What we want to do is stop the attack, sometimes, sadly that requires killing the attacker, but sometimes as we see over and over again, holding a weapon on them is enough.

Caution, the linked video may be disturbing to some viewers: http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Ex...-Police-After-Fatally-Stabbing-Officer-104299

 

[Mudinyeri]

why do we want to kill him? I'm confused again...who wants to kill anyone? What we want to do is stop the attack, sometimes, sadly that requires killing the attacker, but sometimes as we see over and over again, holding a weapon on them is enough.

You didn't watch the video, did you? I'm nearly 100% confident that holding a gun on that guy would have ended (did end) in him killing you with a machete.

 

[razzelflabben]

You didn't watch the video, did you? I'm nearly 100% confident that holding a gun on that guy would have ended (did end) in him killing you with a machete.

Did you read what I said or just make a judgment call because I didn't comment about how bad the video was?

What I said is that sometime pulling a gun is enough, sometimes it is necessary to kill the shooter....sounds to me that I covered both possibles when you only covered one then you judged me for not addressing the one you wanted to talk about....oh well, don't have patience for this right now.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

I honestly don't understand why you guys are linking these stories about a machete wielding attacker who was only able to wound four people. Golly gee, they're all still alive. That's exactly what my posts have been claiming all along. Machetes and knives are not nearly as dangerous as firearms. You guys are funny. You want to argue against my position and then provide proof that my position is at least correct on this matter of the kill force of firearms over knives and machetes.

Then one of you links a story about someone who was stabbed to death. Look!!!!!! Let me repeat it just one more time for you folks that seem abominably slow. I'm not making any attempt whatsoever to stop murder! Let me repeat that one more time for you folks who are abominably slow. I'm not making any attempt whatsoever to stop murder! I understand that people kill people. I get that!!!!! I accept that!!!!! I understand that!!!!!

Please, please pay attention here. My purpose is to show that every nation that has strict firearms controls and puts severe limits on the ownership and possession of firearms by the general public over which it governs enjoys a much safer and secure freedom from such wanton death as we enjoy here in the U.S. Now, many of you disagree and that's perfectly ok with me that you disagree with me, but let's stick to the point.

I admit!!!! I readily agree!!!!! There will still be death in the world by murder. The statistics, despite those who just can't seem to see the forest for the trees, show that strict firearms policies enforced on the national level do curb the death rate in the countries that have such laws.

I understand completely that here in the good ole U.S. of A. we have been teethed and weaned on having a firearm in our pocket. So be it! But born again believers should be looking for the truth.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi all,

I honestly don't understand why you guys are linking these stories about a machete wielding attacker who was only able to wound four people. Golly gee, they're all still alive. That's exactly what my posts have been claiming all along. Machetes and knives are not nearly as dangerous as firearms. You guys are funny. You want to argue against my position and then provide proof that my position is at least correct on this matter of the kill force of firearms over knives and machetes.

apparently you didn't read the comments either that or your just being difficult to see if you can stir the pot...oh well, not playing that game. Have a great day.

Then one of you links a story about someone who was stabbed to death. Look!!!!!! Let me repeat it just one more time for you folks that seem abominably slow. I'm not making any attempt whatsoever to stop murder! Let me repeat that one more time for you folks who are abominably slow. I'm not making any attempt whatsoever to stop murder! I understand that people kill people. I get that!!!!! I accept that!!!!! I understand that!!!!!

Please, please pay attention here. My purpose is to show that every nation that has strict firearms controls and puts severe limits on the ownership and possession of firearms by the general public over which it governs enjoys a much safer and secure freedom from such wanton death as we enjoy here in the U.S. Now, many of you disagree and that's perfectly ok with me that you disagree with me, but let's stick to the point.

If your purpose here is to prove this point, why do you refuse to address any of the things that challenges your position? You see, I was willing to accept your point until you refused to address challenge when the other side didn't shy away from challenge at all. I know this is where you claim you did address the challenge but honestly you didn't and when I called you out on it you just went on as if you did...here's a news flash for you. If you did, I wouldn't have missed it cause I was careful to look for it. The stats contradict one another, therefore you need to explain the contradictions with something solid not just theory in order to deal with the challenge. You repeatedly refuse to do that and since this is my thread, I call foul play on you and move on, especially since you can't even read the comments to know why the machete attack was posted.

I admit!!!! I readily agree!!!!! There will still be death in the world by murder. The statistics, despite those who just can't seem to see the forest for the trees, show that strict firearms policies enforced on the national level do curb the death rate in the countries that have such laws.

I understand completely that here in the good ole U.S. of A. we have been teethed and weaned on having a firearm in our pocket. So be it! But born again believers should be looking for the truth.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

Actually, the stats you are basing this off of are some of the contradictory ones you were asked to address at least twice and refused to do. this type of thing does more in my opinion to hurt your cause than anything else. But that is my personal opinion.

 

[kingskid]

I'm against gun control because I'm against limits on human creative processes because of a bad guy. Limiting gun manufacturing when the bad guy could have easily built a bomb from a pressure cooker? Picking one manufacturer over the other to limit is an assault to freedom out of fear! We as Christian know where fear comes from.

Sent from my RCT6303W87DK using Tapatalk