Duncan Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Can you show me how the gun was to blame for the violence?easy-it's an outlet for an unstable or stable but mad as heck person, without it they have to use something else to take out their anger. For who knows what reason for these kill everyone people other people are the target and the weapon is the object used to commit their crime. Eliminate the need, eliminate the gun and you eliminate the massacre, other countries have this figured out, why hasn't the US yet?
thesometimesaint Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Yes, that's a touching story. Would you bet your family's lives on the mercy of those bent on doing them harm? Or would you call the cops, just in case?What if there's no way the cops could get there in time? What's the average police response time, assuming you have your cell phone handy and can use it?Of course deadly force is the last resort. A show of deadly force is the second-to-last resort, and is usually sufficient.For most people on this board, I'm guessing this is all hypothetical. For me, it has not been. Those of you who expect the Lord to protect you (or help protect you), learn how to maintain situational awareness, and listen to your gut feeling. If something doesn't look right or feel right, take it seriously - THAT is your cue to start moving.Some 80% of all firefights are over in less than 3 seconds. There is no requirement to stand your ground, and desecration is the better part of valor. Yes I have used my sidearm in deadly situations, and would do so again if required to so. But it is foolish to say there isn't a high emotional cost to pay for their use.
ERayR Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Statistically cars kill far more people than guns, maybe we should ban cars?I wasn't comparing which was more dangerous. I want to know how the gun is to blame for the violence?
ERayR Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 easy-it's an outlet for an unstable or stable but mad as heck person, without it they have to use something else to take out their anger. For who knows what reason for these kill everyone people other people are the target and the weapon is the object used to commit their crime. Eliminate the need, eliminate the gun and you eliminate the massacre, other countries have this figured out, why hasn't the US yet?Your logic is confusing. How can a gun be responsible for the violence perpetrated by " an unstable or stable but mad as heck person".
thesometimesaint Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Statistically cars kill far more people than guns, maybe we should ban cars?Nope. Guns just passed up cars as a cause of death.
blackstrap Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The gun isn't to blame,but the consequences of using a gun vs some other weapon can be massive. Kind of like if I sic my chihuahua on you or my pit bull.
Duncan Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Your logic is confusing. How can a gun be responsible for the violence perpetrated by " an unstable or stable but mad as heck person".I can make a joke right here but will refrain! basically if you take away the gun, take out the motivation to do harm then you won't have a problem.
thesometimesaint Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I wasn't comparing which was more dangerous. I want to know how the gun is to blame for the violence?It breeds as false sense of bravado, machismo, and invincibility in the user.
Duncan Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The gun isn't to blame,but the consequences of using a gun vs some other weapon can be massive. Kind of like if I sic my chihuahua on you or my pit bull.when I pop round for dinner i'll remember that! I had a pitbull ruin a pair of my favourite pants in the mission field,but that's beside the point
blackstrap Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Nope. Guns just passed up cars as a cause of death.Worldwide,no question.In the US , debatable.
ERayR Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The gun isn't to blame,but the consequences of using a gun vs some other weapon can be massive. Kind of like if I sic my chihuahua on you or my pit bull.Yep the consequences can vary to the extreme. The consequence of guns is great but the consequence of bombs, even homemade bombs are much greater.
blackstrap Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Duncan, I am reminded of an old basketball coach who would fire up the team before a game with this speech. He would say " Boys,we can win this game tonight,We have to out run and out work the opposition. We have to get more rebounds,we have to cause more turnovers,and above all we have to score more points than they do . If we do that we can win this game!" Edited December 23, 2012 by blackstrap
ERayR Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I can make a joke right here but will refrain! basically if you take away the gun, take out the motivation to do harm then you won't have a problem.This is no joking matter. Your logic is still faulty. The gun is not the motivation to do violence. The state of mind is the motivator. Take away the gun and an angry, deranged mind will still find a way to do violence. Some of those ways are less drastic and some more drastic. Again, stop, think, the gun is not the cause of the violence it is the perpetrators state of mind that is the cause. Remove and melt down all the guns in the world and deranged minds would still find ways to kill others and in large numbers.
Calm Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Yes, that's a touching story. Would you bet your family's lives on the mercy of those bent on doing them harm? The ANLs were, they were willing to die and for their families to die if necessary. What they had an issue with is asking others' to die in their defense, but those others were more than willing to rather than have the ANLs break their covenants.
Storm Rider Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 This is no joking matter. Your logic is still faulty. The gun is not the motivation to do violence. The state of mind is the motivator. Take away the gun and an angry, deranged mind will still find a way to do violence. Some of those ways are less drastic and some more drastic. Again, stop, think, the gun is not the cause of the violence it is the perpetrators state of mind that is the cause. Remove and melt down all the guns in the world and deranged minds would still find ways to kill others and in large numbers.Worse, such an action would result in a populace without any ability to protect or defend itself. It makes far more sense to me to begin to teach people the difference between right and wrong than attempt to remove a choice. It is a shortsighted decision to outlaw guns. 1
ERayR Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Worse, such an action would result in a populace without any ability to protect or defend itself. It makes far more sense to me to begin to teach people the difference between right and wrong than attempt to remove a choice. It is a shortsighted decision to outlaw guns.To blame the violence on the weapon is faulty logic.
Calm Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) gobsmacked at how can people support more guns in the US. How many more massacres have to happen before my very beloved Americans (and I hold no ill will against anyone here) wake up and realize that guns and mental health services are needed? no more military style weapons-hunting rifles only-with proper background checks and permitsThe massacres are more about culture and mental health than guns, look at Switzerland where there are guns in every home (will be interesting to see what changes now they lack ammunition due to abiding by a treaty) and yet such with a much lower frequency.And I am not sure about what can be done about culture because we are talking about something that goes back hundreds of years. It will take time for it to be changed and considering how even other countries love a good Western it will be very hard to change.Look what happens in anticipation of stricter gun control...gun stores have a run on guns. Too often laws have the opposite effect of what they intend when they take on culture. Edited December 23, 2012 by calmoriah
Duncan Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 This is no joking matter. Your logic is still faulty. The gun is not the motivation to do violence. The state of mind is the motivator. Take away the gun and an angry, deranged mind will still find a way to do violence. Some of those ways are less drastic and some more drastic. Again, stop, think, the gun is not the cause of the violence it is the perpetrators state of mind that is the cause. Remove and melt down all the guns in the world and deranged minds would still find ways to kill others and in large numbers. I am not laughing except at the NRA. They need good mental health services to defuse the motivation!!!! Certaint;y the US needs to calm down on the gun and violence culture. I don't know how often nuts with bomb making experience commit acts of violence in the US beyond, meth labs that explode, the Unabomber, Oklahoma City and obviously 9/11. But doesn't the US have strict laws for bomb making ingredients? like you can't get bomb making stuff ( I hope) at Wal-Mart or the gas stationI hope that the US passes laws banning all military style weapons, no one needs them neyond law enforcement and the military. We will always have the deranged and poor among us and it's obviously a complicated issue 1
bdouglas Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 D&C 45: 66-71 says:"It shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God; And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion. And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety. And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another. And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand. And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy."That is an interesting passage in light of the following statistic, or estimate: there are enough privately owned guns in the U.S. today for every man, woman and child to have one. I am guessing that most of these guns are of the assault variety. No matter what the gov't does or does not do, this fact will remain the same (unless the gov't starts confiscating guns, and I doubt that would ever happen). In light of this, it is not hard to understand why--at the future time the above passage is referring to--the only safe place will be Zion.Which gives rise to the following question: Why will it be safe in Zion? What is it, exactly, that makes, or will make it different? The scripture says: "And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand." But why is it that the inhabitants of Zion will be considered "terrible", what is it about them that will make them so fearsome to the wicked? I do not think that it will be because the saints are better armed, because they won the arms race. I think it will be because they are righteous, and because they are righteous the Lord is with them, and this is why the rest of the world perceives them as "terrible".Just my opinion.... 2
Calm Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I guess, but as me Mum used to say if you can't play nicely i'm taking it all away and you get nothing!Unfortunately that generally came after you hit your sibling or whatever and when that rule is applied to guns, it is too late to avoid suffering.
Calm Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 I came across a statistic that some of you might find interesting.I'd like to see comparisons to gun deaths in those states prior to the laws being put in place to see how much might be about local culture over laws.
ERayR Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 The way I see it is, the more guns = the more death. The Lord said "Thou shalt not kill", and there are very very few exceptions to this. So if the need arises to shoot somebody, we'd better be absolutely sure it's the right thing to do. I don't trust myself enough make that determination, especially in a moment of haste with so very little time to think. Once a person's life is gone, it's gone, and nobody can bring them back.I came across a statistic that some of you might find interesting.Faulty logic. The guns do not commit, they do not advocate, they do not entice violence. It is the mind that instigates and begets violence. What was it thatCain used to killAbel? Was it a rock or some farming tool?
Duncan Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 doesn't anyone have a Love thy neighbour attitude anymore? what attitude will we bring with us when we die?, love thy neighbour or kill thy neighbour? especially if you are in some situation and you think someone is going for his piece and you shoot first and find out they don't have a gun. You won't feel so happy if you accidentally kill someone-I think the Church's position should be Love thy neighbour
Calm Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Nope. Guns just passed up cars as a cause of death.cfr please
Duncan Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Unfortunately that generally came after you hit your sibling or whatever and when that rule is applied to guns, it is too late to avoid suffering.true, well my sisters kick! ha! but if you take out guns and the cause for violence there won't be a next time!
Recommended Posts