Gun Control

[jgh7]

Gun control in America is a very hot topic right now. Do religious views factor at all into swaying someone to be for or against gun control?

I'm also just plain interested in the topic of gun control and whether it's right or wrong. I know this site is meant for topics to be relating back to religion, but for this topic in addition to religious views I'd also just like to know people's general opinions of gun control.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 8 by Hamsaka]

Wasn't Jesus advising his disciples before sending them out to teach his message, knowing they would be in danger along the way? It seems to specific to the situation he was sending his disciples into for guns to be a Biblical issue.

He was addressing a specific situation but his command does reveal a general moral truth; it is permissible to own weapons for protection.

Good point!! Jesus also did not advocate for avoiding problems when your life is at risk. Im willing to turn the other cheek for a non-continuous slap, but if something more severe and life threatening, especially towards kids and women, then im morally justified to defend myself.

You both have made a straw man out of my original point. The point I made was about Christians using Bible scripture to justify a political position about gun ownership.

How you get from Jesus recommending self-defense weapons to his disciples when they traveled dangerous roads rife with bandits and thieves to a political position on the right to bear (many) arms in one's home or on one's person is the crux of my position.

As illustrated by Puddleglum already, it's necessary to make up a bunch more semi-related-but-not-really intercessory 'beliefs' that are equally baseless to make a purely semantic case that only fools the people who desperately want to keep their guns.

[myth-one.com]

Gun control in America is a very hot topic right now. Do religious views factor at all into swaying someone to be for or against gun control?

I'm also just plain interested in the topic of gun control and whether it's right or wrong. I know this site is meant for topics to be relating back to religion, but for this topic in addition to religious views I'd also just like to know people's general opinions of gun control.

There is no real gun control in the USA. Guns can be bought or stolen by any of us.

The second amendment does not refer specifically to guns.

It reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns, being arms, is included as a right of the people to keep and freely bear.

Nuclear weapons, likewise being arms, is also a right of the people to keep and freely bear under the second amendment.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, I wrote my senator (a stanch defender of the second amendment) asking if he would support my rights under the second amendment to obtain nuclear arms. I would gladly loan them to the militia when our national security was at risk. Still awaiting a reply on that one.

But my point was that the second amendment obviously needs to be revised to limit certain arms from the hands of individual citizens.

The NRA and congressmen whom they purchase are very much against that idea.

[Strider324]

Gun control in America is a very hot topic right now. Do religious views factor at all into swaying someone to be for or against gun control?

I'm also just plain interested in the topic of gun control and whether it's right or wrong. I know this site is meant for topics to be relating back to religion, but for this topic in addition to religious views I'd also just like to know people's general opinions of gun control.

There is no real gun control in the USA. Guns can be bought or stolen by any of us.

The second amendment does not refer specifically to guns.

It reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns, being arms, is included as a right of the people to keep and freely bear.

Nuclear weapons, likewise being arms, is also a right of the people to keep and freely bear under the second amendment.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, I wrote my senator (a stanch defender of the second amendment) asking if he would support my rights under the second amendment to obtain nuclear arms. I would gladly loan them to the militia when our national security was at risk. Still awaiting a reply on that one.

But my point was that the second amendment obviously needs to be revised to limit certain arms from the hands of individual citizens.

The NRA and congressmen whom they purchase are very much against that idea.

That's because they PRAY for mass killings. Their masters - the gun manufacturers - see their profits rise after each mass killing, because the lemming citizens that suck at the teat of the politics of fear and bigotry promulgated by the NRA run out and buy more guns, ignorantly believing the lie that if they have more guns they are somehow safe from random killings.

Smith and Wesson stock is up 7% thanks to 50 dead in Orlando.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/guns-orla ... 32488.html

[bluethread]

Their masters - the gun manufacturers - see their profits rise after each mass killing, because the lemming citizens that suck at the teat of the politics of fear and bigotry promulgated by the NRA run out and buy more guns,

Interesting, the general reason I hear is not in reaction to the mass killings, but in reaction to the call to outlaw weapons. It is a basic marketing rule that when there is a threat that any good or service that is in demand is going to be taken off the market, demand rises. The lemming citizens that suck at the teat of socialism run out and push for more laws, ignorantly believing the lie that if they have more laws they are somehow safe from random killings. Quite frankly, where is that pressure cooker regulation, it's been over three years since that LEGAL pressure cooker killed all those people. It's amazing that we were able to stop the pressure cooker threat without outlawing pressure cookers. How did that happen?

[myth-one.com]

Do civilians really need assault rifles that were created for the military to kill enemy combatants?

Yes, American should be allowed to capably protect themselves from harm.

But we should not be assisted by our laws in assaulting other Americans.

And we should hunt deer -- not assault them!

[Strider324]

Their masters - the gun manufacturers - see their profits rise after each mass killing, because the lemming citizens that suck at the teat of the politics of fear and bigotry promulgated by the NRA run out and buy more guns,

Interesting, the general reason I hear is not in reaction to the mass killings, but in reaction to the call to outlaw weapons. It is a basic marketing rule that when there is a threat that any good or service that is in demand is going to be taken off the market, demand rises. The lemming citizens that suck at the teat of socialism run out and push for more laws, ignorantly believing the lie that if they have more laws they are somehow safe from random killings. Quite frankly, where is that pressure cooker regulation, it's been over three years since that LEGAL pressure cooker killed all those people. It's amazing that we were able to stop the pressure cooker threat without outlawing pressure cookers. How did that happen?

Gee, I guess imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanx!

I wish your argument had some teeth to it, though. Providing more guns has failed spectacularly in reducing crime. In fact, quite the opposite is the result. The NRA doesn't give a shyt about those statistics, however, and clearly neither do you.

On the other hand, we do have striking evidence of the ability for laws outlawing weapons to dramatically reduce murders and suicides. Australia but the most obvious example. Of course, the NRA ignores that as well, as faithful, obedient, and well-compensated lackies for the gun makers.

Further, your need to present a straw man fallacy speaks for itself. Nobody has ever proposed outlawing any weapons that citizens legitimately need for protection. That's why we have over 500 million handguns already in the hands of citizens (I note with some pained alacrity that although SOME of our mentally ill have access to health care, ALL of them have access to guns. Yeah America!).

But go ahead, present another tortured justification why we need AR-15's to kill Bambi and his mom. I always enjoy the continuing pussification of our Nation as it gives in to the disreputable and plainly false fear-mongering tactics of the NRA.

[bluethread]

Their masters - the gun manufacturers - see their profits rise after each mass killing, because the lemming citizens that suck at the teat of the politics of fear and bigotry promulgated by the NRA run out and buy more guns,

Interesting, the general reason I hear is not in reaction to the mass killings, but in reaction to the call to outlaw weapons. It is a basic marketing rule that when there is a threat that any good or service that is in demand is going to be taken off the market, demand rises. The lemming citizens that suck at the teat of socialism run out and push for more laws, ignorantly believing the lie that if they have more laws they are somehow safe from random killings. Quite frankly, where is that pressure cooker regulation, it's been over three years since that LEGAL pressure cooker killed all those people. It's amazing that we were able to stop the pressure cooker threat without outlawing pressure cookers. How did that happen?

Gee, I guess imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanx!

I wish your argument had some teeth to it, though. Providing more guns has failed spectacularly in reducing crime. In fact, quite the opposite is the result. The NRA doesn't give a shyt about those statistics, however, and clearly neither do you.

On the other hand, we do have striking evidence of the ability for laws outlawing weapons to dramatically reduce murders and suicides. Australia but the most obvious example. Of course, the NRA ignores that as well, as faithful, obedient, and well-compensated lackies for the gun makers.

Do you mean highly regulated places like Chicago, Detroit, LA and New York.

Further, your need to present a straw man fallacy speaks for itself. Nobody has ever proposed outlawing any weapons that citizens legitimately need for protection. That's why we have over 500 million handguns already in the hands of citizens (I note with some pained alacrity that although SOME of our mentally ill have access to health care, ALL of them have access to guns. Yeah America!).

But go ahead, present another tortured justification why we need AR-15's to kill Bambi and his mom. I always enjoy the continuing pussification of our Nation as it gives in to the disreputable and plainly false fear-mongering tactics of the NRA.

Speaking of straw men, I never said we need AR-15's to kill Bambi and his mom. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about protecting one's community. I was just pointing out that two knee jerk reactions do not make a reasonable one. There are plenty of laws on the books and, though the rare cases of mass murder using legal weapons receive lots of coverage, it illegal weapons that kill the vast majority of people, many of them in gun free or highly regulated areas. Outlawing things has never significantly reduces their existence, it has only shifted the open market to the black market and often increased demand and price. Are you also a supporter of the war on drugs? As the 2nd amendment points out, it is not the imposition of laws from above, but the development of strong communities from below that makes us secure. Guns or no guns, a soft target is an open invitation to criminals.

[Strider324]

bluethread scribed:

Do you mean highly regulated places like Chicago, Detroit, LA and New York.

You mean the urban inner city areas where we allowed so many NRA-promoted guns to make their way to the poverty-stricken black citizens who resort to crime as the logical result of 400 years of institutionalized racism?

Yeah, it's a little foolish to bring those areas up. City officials waited far too long to institute some control. They stuck a finger into a dike with a basketball sized hole. It's a bogus example of gun control not reducing crime. It's obviously more difficult reduce crime in areas where it has been rampant for decades - and facilitated by public policy.

The more valid example is the buyback program in Australia - which only targeted automatic weapons and pump action shotguns - that has resulted in a dramatic decrease in firearm murders.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co ... australia/

[bluethread]

bluethread scribed:

Do you mean highly regulated places like Chicago, Detroit, LA and New York.

You mean the urban inner city areas where we allowed so many NRA-promoted guns to make their way to the poverty-stricken black citizens who resort to crime as the logical result of 400 years of institutionalized racism?

Yeah, it's a little foolish to bring those areas up. City officials waited far too long to institute some control. They stuck a finger into a dike with a basketball sized hole. It's a bogus example of gun control not reducing crime. It's obviously more difficult reduce crime in areas where it has been rampant for decades - and facilitated by public policy.

The more valid example is the buyback program in Australia - which only targeted automatic weapons and pump action shotguns - that has resulted in a dramatic decrease in firearm murders.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co ... australia/

Yes, it is difficult, if not impossible, to isolate all factors when doing statistical analysis. That is why I think the knee jerk reactions of both the pro gun and the pro legislation factions are ill advised. So, are you saying that the buyback program in and of itself reduced peoples desire to have automatic weapons and pump action shotguns? Do you think standard economic principles do not apply to fire arms?

[Hamsaka]

Their masters - the gun manufacturers - see their profits rise after each mass killing, because the lemming citizens that suck at the teat of the politics of fear and bigotry promulgated by the NRA run out and buy more guns,

Interesting, the general reason I hear is not in reaction to the mass killings, but in reaction to the call to outlaw weapons. It is a basic marketing rule that when there is a threat that any good or service that is in demand is going to be taken off the market, demand rises. The lemming citizens that suck at the teat of socialism run out and push for more laws, ignorantly believing the lie that if they have more laws they are somehow safe from random killings. Quite frankly, where is that pressure cooker regulation, it's been over three years since that LEGAL pressure cooker killed all those people. It's amazing that we were able to stop the pressure cooker threat without outlawing pressure cookers. How did that happen?

Perhaps some of the gun control proponents (or even anti-gun) are idealistic enough to state such irrational things, but that's part and parcel of polemics. The rest of us rational gun control proponents know good and well that full safety from random killings is not a remotely reasonable goal. Nor will banning guns like Australia did suddenly make everyone safe from gun deaths. Nor will reasonable gun control measures, like banning the purchase and sales of AR-15s magically call the Safety Fairy.

What is reasonable is to take measures to avoid arming whackjobs, mentally unstable, those convicted of domestic violence, those either on or recently on FBI watch lists.

There's no way to stop all of them from waltzing out of the gun shop, especially from purchasing one privately or stealing one. It's way too late, America will continue to top the charts in gun deaths per capita until all of us here are dead. If wishes were fishes and fishes were our very best selves as human beings, you know?

Assault type weapon regulations preventing the sale or purchase of such may stop a whackjob from purchasing one the week before a killing spree so he/she has to rely on a couple of Glock hand pistols to kill half as many people before someone finally jumps them.

I'm willing to concede to the beloved "right" some Americans worship to bear arms, and do not see why it is NOT reasonable to ban assault-type weapons whose only purpose in manufacture is to kill lotsa people as quickly as possible. For those who collect guns and merely polish, clean, oil and caress them with fellow gunz buddies, their pearl-clutching reactivity to flip out over a ban on them does not follow reason.

The current level of arguments made to protect the right to sell and purchase assault type weapons are worse than the arguments supporting prayer over goin' to the doctor. Here's a really 'good' one:

"How many gun deaths have been prevented by the restrictions we already have on gunz??/?"

Yeah, we know it's too late and there's thousands of innocent humans walking around today with a bullseye somewhere on their body that will accept bullets in the near future. So stop characterizing gun control proponents as expecting what they really DON'T expect gun control regulations to do. We're happy with lessening the number of casualties and deaths.

Stop shouting down the house about overturning the Second Amendment and mischaracterizing the genuine concern we have for you, and you and you to not end up a victim while you're out with your wife and children, or you buddies because those whackjobs are not going to stop being born or stop being radicalized. We're overly willing to take on mitigation and strengthening the current gun control regulations we have that aren't even being followed.