What is the "love" with weopons?


PDA






Loud Dogg
May 10, 2004, 02:50 AM
I now that this is not a place for a person that is against gun rights.

But please understand, that i want to know what the attraction is with weopons.
-what is the use for handguns?
-what is the use for assalt rifles?

I love violent games, but actual weopons seem to be sometheing NOT to be in america. Its the irresponsible people that missuse guns, i know that. but the death tole in america is to ban them so NO ONE will get hurt.

hunting rifles can be understandable... but handguns are made to KILL PEOPLE. what else is the use?

please respond.

(i think it is good to always have an opposing side to understand what is happening)

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the "love" with weopons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sm
May 10, 2004, 02:59 AM
"Metal and Wood" by Dennis Bateman


http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Metal_and_Wood.html




The following essay was originally published at www.TheFiringLine.com

It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir emotions greater than the value of the material item.

I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends, the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.

Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of "American soil" upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about America.

Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always "The Flag!" Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.

See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.

Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and says in a choked whisper, "I was there." Ask him, "Is it just metal and clay?" Ask him. I dare you.

The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.

My guns? They’re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation. What could be of such value?

The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.

Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!

Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.

They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their children’s children, through the generations.

Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of "We the People!" instead of the "Powers of the Monarchy."

Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government. And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots, it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.

Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.

Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens - but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?

They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.

Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.

Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.

Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.

Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.

We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away. Today we compromise. We try to appease man’s insatiable appetite for power by throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the "Blessings of Liberty" won for us by our forefathers.

We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready, we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward. But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.

If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.

So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.

P-35/53
May 10, 2004, 03:06 AM
Ok your goal is to see that no one gets hurt - ban cars , matches and beer, and baseball bats and swimming pools and running with scissors. In fact if everybody sets at home we will have less people hurt. If you banned handguns you would have got me hurt when a motorcycle gang decided it would be fun to beat me or kill me- but the fact I had a handgun stopped them . Think about how many people are saved from death or injury simply because handguns are available.Also look at England a country that banned handgun ownership- but they are flooded now with gun crime because of smuggled in guns. We cannot keep drugs out of our country do you think we could stop guns being brought in ?

Dionysusigma
May 10, 2004, 03:15 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27373

It's a good, long read. :)

WonderNine
May 10, 2004, 03:16 AM
but the death tole in america is to ban them so NO ONE will get hurt.

Wut?

Skunkabilly
May 10, 2004, 03:22 AM
Loud Dogg, if guns were illegal, the bad guys would still overpower the good guys since they can gang up on us. Having everyone unarmed is only a little better than having only the bad guys armed.

Harold Mayo
May 10, 2004, 03:27 AM
Oh, God...I know better than to feed the trolls, but...

What is the "love" with weopons?
I now that this is not a place for a person that is against gun rights.

But please understand, that i want to know what the attraction is with weopons.
-what is the use for handguns?
-what is the use for assalt rifles?

I love violent games, but actual weopons seem to be sometheing NOT to be in america. Its the irresponsible people that missuse guns, i know that. but the death tole in america is to ban them so NO ONE will get hurt.

hunting rifles can be understandable... but handguns are made to KILL PEOPLE. what else is the use?

please respond.


First, THR is open to anyone. Unlike many other boards, THR accepts all opinions...just be prepared to defend your position.

Second...attraction to weapons? Why not? Weapons have been coveted items since time immemorial. There is no reason to stop now. It's almost an innate thing. If you don't understand it, then there's really no explaining it. Here at THR, a weapon (firearms in particular) in hand means a way to defend your personal liberty and to ensure your safety and that of others.

To quote Jeff Cooper (a guru to many here):

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud...It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thudnerbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of of most men...It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny....

Cooper is actually speaking mainly of the rifle in that quote from his The Art of the Rifle, but the point is the same for all weapons.

The "use" question is answered in the Cooper quote.

Actual weapons are something that don't need to be in America? Wrong, wrong, wrong...

At least you realize that not all people misuse weapons so you probably realize that, since they are subject to misuse, they are NOT in and of themselves bad. They are NOT sentient items that take over the will of the user.

No one would get hurt if guns were banned? Wrong again. It would be done in other ways. And, of course, once there is no longer an armed citizenry, a tyrannical government is not far behind. In that case, the death toll would be MUCH higher than you could possibly imagine? Are you of a different ethnic persuasion than Caucasian? Worship a different religion than the majority? Hold political or philosophical beliefs that are different from the majority? Do you value the freedom to be able to do so? If you can answer "yes" to any of these questions, then you should never want to see a gun ban of any sort.

I love it when antis talk about the reduced murder rates in Europe or in Asian countries that have firearms bans or harsh laws. They never seem to want to include the deaths that result when it is a government that kills it's own citizens. Although I haven't researched it, I'll bet that Nazi Germany had a fairly low murder rate...but that doesn't include all those millions of Jews and other minority groups slaughtered, now does it...? How many people are killed by the Chinese government in China even now...? What atrocities are committed against the citizens of some of these governments? What freedoms do they have?

Lastly...handguns made to "KILL PEOPLE"? Well, they aren't very damned effective at it! The handguns that I own just wouldn't do the job very well at all. Someone needs to get around to designing a handgun that will "KILL PEOPLE"...I'll be the first in line to buy it. My handguns are for my own protection and for the protection of my family as well as for competition. They're actually for whatever purpose that I choose to use them for since they're just tools.

My hammers are made to HAMMER NAILS, but they can also KILL PEOPLE.

My kitchen knives are made to CUT MEAT, but they can also KILL PEOPLE.

My car is made to DRIVE PLACES, but it can also KILL PEOPLE...as a matter of fact, cars kill far more people than firearms. Let's ban them. But cars are more useful, you say? We can tolerate the death toll from cars but not from guns? Take away the guns and see if you can say that...or if your children or grandchildren can do so...IF they have any freedom of speech, that is.

Fact is, an armed citizenry is the greatest thing going. It ensures democracy and democracy IS the best form of government around bar none.

Do some research. Don't just listen to propoganda. I think you'll find that people on THIS board would encourage reading a wide variety of sources in your research. That's because we know that you'll find the truth. Ask at some place like DU or some other liberal board and you'd get directed ONLY to propoganda. Hell, at DU, you'd be banned immediately for asking your questions...for voicing an opinion. How's that for freedom of expression...?

:)

Oleg Volk
May 10, 2004, 03:38 AM
Imagine a world without guns (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml)

Nightcrawler
May 10, 2004, 03:39 AM
Fencing is a sport.

Swords are weapons. Becoming skilled with a sword, or in martial arts, is training yourself to be able to overpower and/or kill and opponent in combat.

Training with firearms is no different. Being skilled with a gun doesn't make you any more of a potential murder than being skilled with a sword or knowing how to throw a punch.

Of course, there is the potential for accidents and abuse. But, who is the government to tell me that I can't have a gun because someone ELSE has an accident or breaks the law with one?

That's the jist of it right there. Responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished for the acts of the minority.

In any case, a "hunting rifle" can also serve as a "sniper rifle"; "sporting" weapons are just as deadly as "assault" rifles. Saying people should have one kind of gun but not another is really splitting hairs.

atek3
May 10, 2004, 03:59 AM
But please understand, that i want to know what the attraction is with weopons.
-what is the use for handguns?
-what is the use for assalt rifles?

I love violent games, but actual weopons seem to be sometheing NOT to be in america. Its the irresponsible people that missuse guns, i know that. but the death tole in america is to ban them so NO ONE will get hurt

Why handguns? At distances of 10 yards or less a handgun is very formidable part of your overall self-defense repetoir. When you are within grappling distance of your attacker, a gun can be a liability, as it can be "taken and used against you" (my favorite MMM quote), which is why knives or juijitsu are good options. Beyond grappling range but within 25 yards handguns are a great choice, relatively small and easy to conceal, it enables anyone from a 110 pound 21 year old lady, to a wheelchair bound 75 year old man the ability to stop an attacker rapidly. Beyond that a rifle is the best tool for protection. The phrase "assault rifle" is a meaningless term, but what I think you mean is a weapon that is based upon a military style rifle that uses a 'high-capacity detachable magazine'. The fact that it is based on military design simply means it will likely be more reliable and trustworthy than a standard hunting rifle. For the advantage of high capacity mags I'd like to use one of Oleg's pictures, with his permission I hope: http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/arms/why30rounders

If you have any more questions msg me.

I too play "violent video games" (my handle on BF1942: Desert Combat is "Private Operator", come visit me on the server Lemon Party). However there is a big difference between games, which are fun, and every one walks away from little worse for the wear, and reality, where brutes and thugs assault, rape, or kill you or the ones you love. Given the ineffectiveness of trying to disarm criminals through gun control laws, if you would like to keep your family safe, I'd advice you to take a handgun safety course, heres a list of classes local to you http://www.pun.org/schools.html

Welcome to the high road, Loud Dogg, pleased to make your acquaintance.

atek3

Aikibiker
May 10, 2004, 04:05 AM
I "love" weapons for a number of reasons. First I enjoy the technology involved. Motorcycles and guns are neat things that I can take apart and put back together just like I did with my Legos as a kid. I also like power tools. IT is a testosterone thing in my case. I am a guy I won't apologize for it.

I also enjoy the discipline inherent in marksmanship and shooting skills. I like pushing myself to see how good I can become. Overcoming obstacles and challenges feels good. If you have never done it I highly suggest changing the oil in your personal vehicle. Or putting in a new starter motor the next time yours goes bad. It will make you feel good when you are done. Kind of like conquering communism with a socket wrench.

The reasons I like "assault weapon" and handguns have to do with self-defense. I live in Florida. We have hurricanes that do a lot of damage. They can shut down police service for weeks at a time and you are on your own. Military style semiautomatic weapons with large capacity magazines make good looter repellent. Ask any of the Korean shop owners that hauled out their "assault weapons" during the Rodney King riots in LA and they will have first hand accounts.

That last reason for my "love" of weapons is a lot darker. They ARE designed to kill. Let me explain this. I am 6 feet tall and 175 pounds. I have studied martial arts for years. I have practiced both the flowery forms and the "thug" techniques. I am good at it. I am young, strong and fast. I learn techniques quickly. I don't know you, but chances are I could defeat you in hand to hand combat in the ring or the street. For all of this I am not very high up the food chain when it comes to interpersonal violence. There are people out there that can eat me for breakfast a lot of them in fact. I have seen some evil things in my life and I am only 26. Weapons give me a chance if I ever run afoul of one of these super predators. By having something that allows me to kill easier then with my bare hands I have a better chance to live myself. It is ugly, but that is the way it is.

I much prefer the first two reasons. The last two however do exist and must be faced.

If you can tell me a better way to make sure I will make it home alive tomorrow I would sure love to hear it.

(Quick note: I believe in God and trust him with my safety. However it seems very irresponsible to make him do all the work.)

Wildalaska
May 10, 2004, 04:40 AM
Whats a weopon?

WyldvowelsubstitutionAleska

Bruce in West Oz
May 10, 2004, 05:27 AM
Oh, Lawdy, we're running one of these over on the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Firearms Discussion Board, too:

Name: Don
From: Perth
Date: 10-May-2004
Comment:
Good on yah Albert, Greg Troll, Peter

Yes it is nice to see some real Australian's that aren't afraid to stand up
and have there say against the gun lobby. And it’s because of people like
you that we are going to win this battle. If we keep using this forum and
encourage all our like minded friends to use it we can easily take it over.
Also keep reminding people that there are many thousand of military style
sniper rifles out there capable of blowing you head clean of from over 1km
distance they fire high caliber bullets that explode on impact and have
telescopic sight that can even see in the dark, to the police they are known
as "Category B firearms" shooters say they need them for hunting, must be
some mean rabbits around. It's time to write you local politician telling of
your support for the banning of "Category B firearms"

A Cat B firearm is, basically, any longarm other than a rimfire or shotgun.

I don't even offer these trolls the benefit of a courteous reply any more. They come here with a closed mind; they can leave the same way.

But YMMV. :fire:

Bruce

PromptCritical
May 10, 2004, 05:43 AM
Portland, Huh?

Have you ever shot a gun before? It is a lot of fun, thats why most of us like guns.
I bookmarked that link from Atek3. Looks helpful.
There are a bunch of Highroaders who shoot at some dump near Portland.
I hope to attend when I get out of the Peoples Republic and back to the Free Country. Your bio says you're only 15, so you'll probably have to ask mom. Try this page: www.a-human-right.com (more shameless Oleg volk plugging. Love that site Oleg!).

OT: (Not firearms related, usually) Since you are about the right age, here's another plug: www.sss601.org I enjoyed it when I was your age. PM me if you're interested.

racenutz
May 10, 2004, 05:54 AM
hunting rifles can be understandable... but handguns are made to KILL PEOPLE. what else is the use?

FYI, In my state (and Iowa's not the only one) hunting deer with what is typically thought of as a "hunting rifle" is considered poaching & is thus illegal. However, hunting with a "magnum" handgun is perfectly legal.

Marko Kloos
May 10, 2004, 06:40 AM
hunting rifles can be understandable... but handguns are made to KILL PEOPLE. what else is the use?


Then why do we issue them to police officers?

Harry Tuttle
May 10, 2004, 07:25 AM
From a statistical stand point,
Bathtubs are made to kill people too.
They are kinda difficult to carry concealed,
but this new trend for people to carry plastic bottles of water has me worried.

Some of us like collecting interesting 100 year old technology,
Guns tend to hold their value better than this moderne digital stuff.

and there is such a wide variety

Why, a collector of pre 1900 designed revolvers might need 20
just to have a good cross section of the designs and manufacturers.

And Assualt weapons?
Why that, Eugene Stoner really made a beautiful machine,
precisely engineered in 1957, to generate facinating web forum postings.
Theres dang near 60,000 of this one design sold every year.
If you believed the nattering mommmies,
we should all be dead just from looking at pictures of them.

Instead we spend lovely afternoons at the range,
perfecting our ability to precisely perferate paper at 100 yards.

Why would anyone want an automatic transmission in a car?
All you really need is a 20 horsepower stick shift to drive to work.

and heck, you can play "jimmie cracked corn" on an acoustic guitar,
no need for those automatic, machine gun riff playing electric guitars.

now don't get me started on
Half caf iced mocha latte skinnie grandes,
or golf courses

No one needs that.

artherd
May 10, 2004, 07:45 AM
Loud Dogg- I would like to invite you to shoot my guns at the local range, so you can personally see exactly what they will, and will not, do.

They're really not what Hollywood would have you think at all.


You will see there's really very little difference between a single-shot .22, and a so called 'assault' weapon. They're both guns, and both are powerful tools.

That's all they are, really. Power tools. So much metal pipe and a wooden handle, with a power source to move some metal.

In the hands of a good and responsible person, no more dangerous than a Chainsaw.

In the hands of an immoral person... Well, a chainsaw is bad news there too. As is a car.




I know you think a world where guns are illegal would be a safe one, but do you really belive that is true?

Right now, it is illegal to use a gun in a crime (or even have one and plan a crime.) It is also illegal to steal guns.

But criminals already steal guns and commit crimes! Therefore, they will ALWAYS have guns!

Since GOOD, MORAL, LAW-ABBIDING people are the only ones who care about laws, gun control laws only leave the 'good guys' un-armed, and defenseless.




Please respond, The High Road encourages everyone to voice their viewpoint in an effective and respectful mannar. We do not discriminate, and welcome open discussion!

artherd
May 10, 2004, 07:50 AM
One more statistic that blew my socks clean off when I first heard it.

In Texas, where all one needs to carry a pistol is to apply for a permit and pay the fees,

CHL Permit holders are 1/3rd LESS likely to commit a violent crime, THAN THE POLICE!


Yes, those citizens with handguns are better behaved than the cops. Amazing isnit it?



The gun owner is your friend. She or He is the kind of person who will stop and help if you're in an accident. He/She will be the kind of person who will not sit quietly by and watch while you and your family are raped.

These kind of people are the ones we WANT to have guns, for simply by virtue of having them, they make the world a SAFER place for all of us.

Shovelhead
May 10, 2004, 07:58 AM
If you want to live in a place where virtually all guns are illegal,

Try Washington DC.

They usually rank #1 or #2 in the nation for gun related Homicides each year.

Remember the old saying?
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

crewchief
May 10, 2004, 08:02 AM
As usual Oleg a superb link, you and everyone else on this bord do wonders to educate and protect our rights. I have another reason that I love guns so to speak. I like to look at the beauty of a firearm at a engineering stand point. Yes on the surface firearms look rather simple in there design, but look down deep and you will see things that are sometimes a engineering marvel. The different stresses and tolerances as well as the effects of pressure and temperature. When a rifle can consistently place a small piece of lead within .300 of an inch from each previously fired shot at a 100yds or more that to me is when the true beauty of a firearm shines. I guess that is why I like benchrest shooting and why I am in constant search to push the boundaries of physics to get that projectile to travel the same path every time.:p

atek3
May 10, 2004, 08:07 AM
.300 inch groups, man crewchief, you gotta tighten those up :)

atek3

joab
May 10, 2004, 08:18 AM
More murders are comitted with hammers, ball bats and knives than are with guns. If you banned guns the murder rate would not necessarily go down, the sale of hammers, ball bats and knives would probably just go up.
Read my sig line.


Havinga different opinion and openly expressing that opinion to initiate a conversation does not make you a troll.
And bad typing grammer and spelling does not make you a dolt.
Why don't we engage this guy in a respectful, reasonable debate, he seems honest enough.
For now.

crewchief
May 10, 2004, 08:38 AM
atek,
I was just giving an example of the "average rifle":p

boofus
May 10, 2004, 09:03 AM
Guns are machines. Many people that like to tinker with guns also like cars, boats, planes, motorcycles, and whatever. Guns are machines designed to move a small object from point A to point B. Very much like a golf club and or baseball bat. In fact more crimes are commited with those than guns every year.

When you look at them objectively without all the brady bunch hype and hollyweird stereotypes you see them for what they really are. Pieces of metal and plastic with each piece engineered for a specific function.

Anything else you might attach to a firearm whether it is positive or negative is your own personal baggage.

gggman
May 10, 2004, 09:04 AM
For the folks who are taking Loud Dogg to task about his grammar, take into account that English is not his native language. According to his profile, he is German, but living in Oregon.
Loud Dogg, all I can say to you is, you have a lot to learn. And you're only fifteen, so that's perfectly understandable.
I hope that you actually read all the responses on this thread with an open mind, and that you have the inteligence to comprehend them. People like guns for lots of different reasons, and some of us don't feel that we have to justify our fondness for guns to anyone.

boofus
May 10, 2004, 09:11 AM
What was that quote?

"Anyone who isn't a liberal when they're 20 is heartless. Anyone who doesn't become conservative by the time they are 30 is brainless."

:D

ExpatGator
May 10, 2004, 09:15 AM
Q: What is the use of handguns?

A: Ask my niece, who is currently being stalked by her 225lb. violent, mouth breathing ex-boyfriend.

Jim PHL
May 10, 2004, 10:25 AM
From Harold Mayo (earlier post):

Do some research. Don't just listen to propoganda. I think you'll find that people on THIS board would encourage reading a wide variety of sources in your research. That's because we know that you'll find the truth. Ask at some place like DU or some other liberal board and you'd get directed ONLY to propoganda. Hell, at DU, you'd be banned immediately for asking your questions...for voicing an opinion. How's that for freedom of expression...?

This is key. The reasons quoted by gun banners are seldom based in fact. Find the truth for yourself, rather than fall in line with anyone, INCLUDING US HERE ON THE HIGH ROAD.

Chip Dixon
May 10, 2004, 10:46 AM
Loud Dogg,

I feel you have been subject to much propaganda. You ask, what is with the "love" with weapons? You seem to feel that there is a "gun culture" where people are obsessed with guns using them to kill. This is a lie often perpetrated by propaganda machines like HCI. What lies beneath the "gun culture" is a love of life and liberty. The polar opposite of the victim mentality expressed by groups like HCI. We will not lie down and let ourselves be mugged, robbed and raped. We will fight back against the terrors that make our streets unsafe and make the weak scared to walk the streets. We won't hide in our basements and let our freedoms be taken by a bunch of thugs. Gun control laws strike at that very basic right. They take the previously legal and common sense means of protecting oneself away from law abiding citizens. They make criminals feel safe going out and being criminals because only someone else who is breaking the law (or a cop, which they can usually spot a block away) will be able to stop them.

Handguns are the great equalizer. You can be a 90 lb girl, and with a handgun and proper training and mindset you can prevent yourself from being kidnapped, raped and murdered by a gang of psychopaths. No other tool can do this, and still be convenient enough to carry that it won't be left at home. Pepper spray and pocket knives don't quite fit the bill when your life is on the line and the odds are against you.

"Assault" weapons (as they have been branded by propagandists) are why no government would dare try to go straight out and enslave the american populace. They know they would have no chance. They are also the ideal weapon in a true SHTF scenario (natural disaster, riot, etc.). They are used in so few crimes that the statistics are insignificant.

Banning firearms of any type is counterproductive. It only takes them out of the hands of people who you should want to have them -- honest, law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws. That's why they are criminals. With the millions upon millions of guns in this country, trying to confiscate them is truly impossible. And even if they all did disapear, guns are still made overseas. If we can't stop millions of pounds of heroin and coke from coming into the country, guns won't be any problem either. You can't take technological steps backwards. It is a pipe dream. Once you open the Pandora's box, it stays open.

You say "handguns are made to kill people". Handguns are meant to SAVE LIVES. That's why police are required to carry them in the USA. They don't have them to kill people. I'm sure you know that there are plenty of people just as honorable or moreso than the police. Why should they be disarmed? Don't you want as many good people out there to protect you as possible? Shouldn't you take responsibility for protecting your own life? Odds are that when you need a cop to be there to protect you, they won't be there. Having a handgun on your belt could save your life, or the life of those that you love. Life is irreplaceable, using lethal force to protect it is perfectly justifiable. Believing "it will never happen to me" is sheer ignorance of the world we live in.

Banning guns makes more people get hurt, it makes criminals more bold. I know this may be counterintuitive. However, facts are more important than theory. Take Washington D.C., for example. Having a handgun in D.C. is a felony. However, more people are killed with handguns in D.C. on average in ONE DAY than are killed in Vermont in a MONTH. In Vermont, you do not need a permit to carry a handgun, and it is very commonplace for people to carry guns on their person. No criminal in their right mind would pick Vermont as a place to do their "business" on a regular basis. They'd much rather go to D.C. where they'll be safe from gun-toting, law-abiding citizens. All they have to watch out for is other felons. Chicago is much the same way.

I know you may choke at the thought of everyone carrying guns. However, if everyone did, the world would be a much safer place.

BHPshooter
May 10, 2004, 11:50 AM
Loud Dogg: Let me address a couple of your questions. Firstly, the thought that "handguns are designed to KILL people." That is right, in a sense... A handgun is not intentionally designed to kill a person, it is designed to save the life of the person who owns it. The death of the person is often a side effect.

the major design point of a handgun is that it is portable -- you can have it with you. As such, it will always be handy when you meet a threat.

Ask yourself some questions -- Whose responsibility is it to see that you are safe? The Police? Can the Police guarantee your safety? Are they always going to be right behind you when something goes down? If so, then why is there crime?

The sad fact of the matter is that the Police are NOT there to protect you. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that this is the case... they have even ruled that it is not required of them to respond to a 911 call.

You are responsible for your own safety. As such, whose life is more valuable to you? Yourself, or some scumbag trying to kill you, take your money to buy crack, and rape your girlfriend? Would you be willing to defend yourself and your loved ones, even if it means said scumbag will die?

That's a highly personal question, but the answer will define the type of person you are. Either you can stand up against unjust violence, or you can bend over and take it.

In America, we don't like to be pushed around. The precursor to the American flag was a banner with red-and-white stripes, a coiled snake, and the words "Don't Tread on Me." Many Americans take this to heart -- and that's why we stick by our defensive tools.

A gun is a tool. Remember: the thing that separates us from Monkeys is that we use tools. Robbing our toolbox (by banning guns) devalues humanship. It lowers us to the level of Monkeys.

I am no monkey. I own defensive tools, and I am ready, willing, and able to use them. It's a symbol of independence, and it's the most necessary safeguard to Liberty. I take that seriously.

Wes

Derek Zeanah
May 10, 2004, 12:00 PM
A few points here: There's a certain infatuation with firearms for what they are -- fine mechanical devices. It's no different than you'll find if you do a search for mechanical watch forums, or Leica camera forums (M6 and prior rangefinders only please -- keep that electronically timed shutter junk away from me ;) ). Complex mechanical instruments that are designed well enough for your great grand-children to be able to enjoy make for awesome big-boy toys.
Cops carry guns because they realise a simple fact that you apparently do not: sometimes people find themselves in a situation where the best choice you can make is to wound someone in a way that might kill them. Search the archives here and at www.thefiringline.com for some stories related by members (the most vivid off the top of my head is one where a member's wife woke up in bed to find a stranger on top of her telling her of the things he'd do to her before he killed her -- a .45 fixed that problem in a way little else would have been able to). As sad as it is to say, simetimes people need killing. It's always been that way, and still is today.
Look around the world with a focus on the last century and you'll find a correlary: sometimes leaders and governments need killing. Especially those that begin to execute their citizens based on race, or religion. Historically, you'll find the harm here orders of magnitude greater than the harm caused by the private misuse of arms, and this leads to the argument that everyone should be armed in order to keep governments in check.

I know you don't want to believe this, but it's true. A frail person can easily fall victim to a stronger predator; a 3rd degree black-belt can easily fall to 5 toughs who want to bring baseball bats to a fight. The most effective way to defend yourself in those situations is with a firearm.

Likely? Not really, but Louis Freeh (assistant AG under Clinton) said you were more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than be involved in an auto accident. Do you wear a seatbelt? Why not prepare for a more likely threat?

another okie
May 10, 2004, 12:39 PM
It's a good thing there no were no guns in the days of Genghis Khan, or Attila the Hun, or Saladin. They might have hurt someone!

Guy B. Meredith
May 10, 2004, 12:54 PM
Firearms are not necessarily weapons. In my case they are not except in the sense that a baseball bat or kitchen knife may be put to use in self defense--not the normal use, but can fill in where needed. I have several firearms, but no weapons. It is all in the intent and use.

Firearms of all sorts are used for recreational purposes; marksmanship, history recreation, action shooting, trap, skeet and others. These sports are mentally and physicaly challenging, enjoyable and satisfying in and of themselves.

Firearms also provide enjoyment in the pure mechanics and in the challenge of putting together that ideal handbuilt ammunition, pushing both the machine and the ammunition to the extreme in terms of accuracy.

In all the above no violence, no wish for violence is involved.

Banning firearms will not reduce violence. Criminals and those inclined to violence will always have access to guns in the same way they have access to banned drugs or will use alternate means of committing violence. Banning firearms, drugs or anything else never denys criminals those items, it just denys those items to those that respect the law.

I shake my head at the number of times someone says that something should be controlled because it is already banned and a criminal is using it. Illogical. It is already banned but still in use by criminals.

ctdonath
May 10, 2004, 01:06 PM
"I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
- J.R.R.Tolkien

BHPshooter
May 10, 2004, 01:16 PM
"Anyone who isn't a liberal when they're 20 is heartless. Anyone who doesn't become conservative by the time they are 30 is brainless."

I guess that speaks volumes about me. :uhoh:

Wes, 20-year-old heartless libertarian.

Zak Smith
May 10, 2004, 01:16 PM
I now that this is not a place for a person that is against gun rights.

But please understand, that i want to know what the attraction is with weopons.
-what is the use for handguns?
-what is the use for assalt rifles?

You sound like my mom, about 5 years ago. Here's what I wrote to her:

> .not just designed 'to kill people' .

How did you come to this conclusion? Just curious.

Really, mom, be realistic here. If you want to use that criteria: Dad's .30-06 WAS LITERALLY DESIGNED FOR KILLING PEOPLE.

It's an old army rifle, right? -- now adapted for "sporting use" (e.g.: hunting). The modifications made to change from military configuration, as far as I know:

1 nice looking stock (dense walnut?)
2 shortened barrel to reduce weight and make it less-unwieldy (wait-a-minute.. that sounds like something you'd want if you were going to KILL PEOPLE)
3 add a nice leather sling
4 add a good scope
5 maybe re-bed the barrel for accuracy

It's just silly to decide "designed for murdering people" based on how the gun looks. "Oooh, the AR-15 looks EVIL -- must be made for going on a MURDEROUS RAMPAGE."

And it's silly to assume that a semi-automatic pistol in something larger than a .22 (e.g.: my .40 pistol) has no purpose except to kill people.

It's pretty easy to see that some of the features you might want if you are hunting or plinking in the forest are some of the same features someone in a military context might want: durability, light weight, short barrel (16" - 20"), accurate.

Basically, it comes down to these points:
1. a person is ultimately responsible for their actions
2. all guns are potentially lethal
3. any firearm can be used with evil intent.. dad's 20 gauge side-by-side shotgun, 7mm deer rifle, or a military M16
4. even though in america we don't have to justify our "wants" ("I want a car that can do 0-60 in 5 seconds, and can go 150 mph"), there are legitimate sporting reaons to want a firearm with some of the same features that military arms have

Now, onto another issue. "To murder" vs. "to kill." "To murder" someone is to kill them immorally (illegally). One of the things firearms can do (and have been designed for) is stop and/or kill people.

There are cases where using a firearm against another person is moral, in fact, it would be negligent to fail to use it to stop them: in defense of life or grave injury. Most states' laws explicitly spell this out.

In this situation, since the use *is* moral (and legal), then it does not matter what firearm is used.

The point is that if it is moral to use a .41 revolver to stop an escaped convict who has broken into your house with a knife about to rape and kill you, then it is just as moral to use a Colt .45 auto designed in 1911 for the army.


In short:
. Actions have moral implications, not objects
. Who are you to determine what's a legitimate "use" of a firearm, if I'm not hurting anyone else?
. Handguns and "assalt [sic] rifles" are particularly suited for self defense
. Handguns and semi-automatic rifles are particularly suited for certain types of shooting competition
. Molon labe.

-z

EghtySx
May 10, 2004, 01:21 PM
Try going to a range and shooting sometime. Guns are very fun to shoot. I have shot my whole life, mostly shotguns. Some of the best times I had as a kid weren't even at a range or trapshoot but just "plinking". When we would go hunting and there was nothing to shoot we would sometimes just "prune trees". Not as fun as shooting birds, rabbits, etc. but still very fun and some of my most fond memories.

MrMurphy
May 10, 2004, 01:32 PM
Tolkien was right.

I was once a history major. On the History Channel, Tales of the Gun is quite right. To understand the gun is to understand history. Without muskets and the British Army, the majority of Europe would be speaking French. Without rifles and the US/British/Canadian armies, the majority of Europe would still be ruled by Nazi Germany.

Without firearms, the US would still be a colony.


The first thing the Nazis did to the Jews was to take away their guns. You know what happened after that. Russia did the same thing to their people (their farmers, etc). Guns are fine instruments, tools, heirlooms, and equalizers above all else.

Swords are fine instruments but take years of training to use well and not hurt yourself while doing it. Only fairly strong people make good swordswingers (ever seen a REAL swordsman? His forearms are huge). I am a medieval re-enactor and swordfighter, with both rattan, padded foam/PVC and live steel (i.e real sharp weapons), and with nearly five years experience, and a great deal of training, I'm still only average. This includes a year of Olympic style fencing.

You can give any average person two hours of instruction and they can defend themselves with a pistol (in a pinch, five minutes of instruction), with a good two day course at a shooting school they'll be okay with tactics and aiming etc.

Two or three days for a rifle, maybe a day of instruction for a shotgun. A 90 year old grannie with a .38 revolver can hold off two large young bad guys. She couldn't rely on the cops (trust me, they always show up too late...I used to be a news photographer).

I'm 26 years old, and have been shooting 20 years on and off, and ten years continously. I carry a pistol for self defence daily. In three years I've nearly needed to use it twice to defend myself against Very Bad People. The only reason I didn't is they saw I was armed and unafraid and ran for it. Having a shotgun, loaded and available at home kept my house from being invaded in California. I lived a mile from a sheriff's department and they still took 20 minutes to show up (the guy was long gone). This was in a very nice part of Los Angeles, 40+ miles from the bad areas. But bad guys don't just stay in bad areas.

I own a number of guns, and have owned many more that i traded or sold. Some I bought because they were fun to shoot. Most I bought because they filled a need. Whether for target practice, hunting, self or home defense, or "why the hell not?", some were also bought for their history (I have a World War Two Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk1 bolt action rifle that saw WW2 service, and is still in excellent condition......it's a keepsake, a historical artifact, and my very first rifle. It will never be sold, and handed down to my sons when I have some, or my daughters if I have no sons). My father has an Imperial German Army World War One Mauser G98 Ka, made in 1918, Danzig, that fulfills the same role (first rifle, historical artifact, and finely made precision instrument).

More people are killed by cars, swimming pools, blunt objects, meteorites, lightning strikes, and cigarette smoke than just about everything else. Guns can be used for crime, but far more are used for defense of good people. The old saying "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal" is quite true.

A fifteen year old female friend of mine shot a man who was going to rape and kill her with a 9mm. She was aiming to wound (not good, she should have aimed center of mass) and he dived for her, taking a round in the left ventricle, killing him instantly. You know what? Nobody shed a tear, the guy had a rap sheet two pages long. She wasn't trying to kill him, but without that gun, she would be a murder statistic.

You can kill someone with just about anything. Yeah, banning guns would disarm all us good people and increase the number of run-by table-lampings and baseball-battings, and stabbing would drastically increase. Banning knives, lamps, bats and lumber would increase stranglings......

You get the picture. Don't ban the tool. Ban the idiot who uses it for a crime.

Vern Humphrey
May 10, 2004, 02:01 PM
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------
but handguns are made to KILL PEOPLE. what else is the use?
------------------------------------------------

Handguns are made to DEFEND people. There are unassailable studies that show that handguns are used millions of times for defense -- and usually, not a shot is fired. A man or woman threatened with mugging or worse, draws a gun, and the attacker backs off.

Handguns are made for hunting -- I hunt with handguns all the time. I've killed everything from squirrels to deer with handguns, and hope someday to take a elk with my Coilt .45.

Handguns are made for recreation -- I've shot hundreds of thousands of rounds at paper and other targets.

Handguns are made for safety -- many a fisherman (myself incuded) carrys a handgun to deal with snakes.

Handguns are made for national security -- and skill with weapons is crucial to maintaining our indepenedence and way or life. The only time I've ever shot someone with a handgun was in battle. On at least one occasion, I won because I was the better shot, and had grown up with guns.

Werewolf
May 10, 2004, 03:36 PM
Guns are tools.

I could no more love a gun than a hammer or a fork or a shovel.

That said I do enjoy using guns for a number of purposes for which they are designed.

The challenge of putting little holes in paper very close together shot out of a gun is an enjoyable passtime.

Since I feel personally responsible for the safety of my family and myself I choos to own the best tools I can to insure that safety. Guns are among the best tools available for that job.

As for this:Fact is, an armed citizenry is the greatest thing going. It ensures democracy and democracy IS the best form of government around bar none.That is true only in so far as the armed citizenry is willing to use those arms. That will is long gone in the USA...

Cameron Lamont
May 10, 2004, 03:52 PM
hook... line... and sinker.

Dave R
May 10, 2004, 04:46 PM
Here's why I carry a gun.

I like outdoor sports. Especially fly fishing for large trout. Have to get out in the boonies to do that.

I read several stories about people in the boonies that had been murdered or raped. Hmmm. Arizona. Florida. Yosemite, CA. Could it happen to me?

While fly-fishing about an hour from the nearest road, and probably 4 hours from the nearest law enforcement officer, or more, I had a run-in with some unsavory types.

Nothing happened. But I remember being aware that, if they had wanted something bad to happen, they could've made it happen. I could not have stopped it.

I didn't want to be in that position again, so I got a license to carry a concealed firearm.

Studied up on the issue, and learned that firearms interrupt/prevent anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million crimes a year. Depending on whose study you read. But the lowest number anyone who has studied the issue can come up with is 800,000 crimes prevented.

Also, 90% of the time a firearm is presented (drawn) by a victim, the weapon is not fired. The perpetrator wisely decides to leave immediately.

So I disagree completely with your statement that handguns were just designed to kill. Handguns were designed to PROTECT.

And they do that very well.

(And as I trained so I could use my handgun properly, I learned that they are fun to shoot in their own right.)

Frohickey
May 10, 2004, 04:52 PM
The 'love' with weapons is the same as the 'love' that people have for their car, or their stamp collection, or their home-entertainment system.

Heck, I know people that 'love' their computer system! :eek: ;)

What good is a handgun? You say that hunting rifles are understandable, how about hunting handguns? How about handguns that can be carried in case you meet up with an angry bear, or a mountain lion, or a rattlesnake?

Standing Wolf
May 10, 2004, 04:56 PM
Shooting a hand gun well takes decades of time and effort. Any nitwit can point and click, but to keep ten shots in a three-inch circle at twenty-five yards takes a certain base level of skill—most people have it—and more single-minded determination than non-shooters can even begin to imagine.

It becomes almost an art form after a few years, almost a form of Zen after a few more.

iapetus
May 10, 2004, 06:12 PM
A few facts/statistics from the UK, where I live, and firearms are heavily restricted and difficult to aquire (legally).


In 1987, a madman by the name of Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in the town of Hungerford, murdering 16 people. The weapons he used he owned legaly (a semi-automatic "assault" rifle - which were banned as a result -, and some handguns).

However, he also possessed two - completely prohibited - sub-machine guns. So even a total gun ban could not have prevented the murders.

(There is some info here) (http://www.capital.demon.co.uk/LA/political/guncase.htm)


In 1996, in Dunblane in Scotland, another madman (and legal gun owner) walked into a school and shot dead a number (12?) of children and teachers.

Could a gun ban have prevented that shooting? Maybe - if he had not just aquired a gun illegaly. But he could have easily killed as many people by driving a car into a bus queue.

After the Dunblane masacar, the government banned all handguns.

Since then, illegal gun ownership and criminal shootings have increased. Is this a result of the gun ban? Some say so, on the grounds that criminals now know that the law-abiding public are less likely to be armed. I don't know if that is actually true - I'm not sure if the general level of gun ownership was high enough to pose a significant risk to criminals (although perhaps the ban just made that clearer). What is clear though is that the ban has not stopped gun crime, nor prevented illegal ownership of firearms.

For example, "In the past 12 months there have been nearly 10,000 incidents involving firearms in England and Wales, and 97 gun-related murders. Government figures show that gun crime rose by 35% last year." (from Mothers Against Guns (http://www.mothersagainstguns.net/index.htm), who want to stop this by banning replica guns).

stevelyn
May 10, 2004, 11:45 PM
What is the love with weapons?

To get the right answer you have to understand the concepts of Freedom and Liberty. To understand Freedom and Liberty you have to learn some history and have a desire to live as you see fit without encroaching on others rights. Perhaps you should read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers to understand what the founding father were trying to achieve and why. Then you need to look inside yourself to see if you are capable of functioning a free man in day to day life. Then you need to do further research to fill in the blanks you have questions on.
I have found those who have a problem with weapons are in a lot of cases people who are afraid of freedom and liberty. It requires too much effort and independent thinking on their part.

Tom Bri
May 11, 2004, 12:09 AM
I am 42. Some of my joints ache from old injuries. I am slim and not strong muscled. There are a lot of 15-year-olds out there who could beat me to a pulp if they so chose. And lets face it, teens are not known for good sense and quiet contemplation. Old guys like me need a gun just to keep the odds even.

Guns equalize power between the big, strong and ruthless, and the old, small, weak or peaceful people. I don't care how big and mean a guy is, if we both have guns we are equal in power. That is the origin of democracy.

Democracy (I mean human freedom in general, not just the dictionary definition) was very rare, and limited to small states like Swizerland, or single cities like old Athens, prior to the invention of guns. Since guns were invented there has been a steady and gradual change to more and more freedom. Countries that want to limit freedom always try to keep guns out of the common person's hands. Just common sense.

itgoesboom
May 11, 2004, 12:41 AM
LoudDogg,

America's facsination with weapons? Let's see.

American History.

It was American's ability to keep and bear arms against the British that allowed us to become our own country in the first place, and the reason why the 2nd amendment is in the constitution. This is something that you should learn in School here, even in Portland.

The 2nd amendment is not there to protect our rights to hunt. Nope. It is there, much like the rest of the Bill of Rights so that we can protect our country against the inevitable onslaught of a corrupt government. The writers of the constitution understood that without certain provisions, a Federal Government would take control away from the state and the people to which it belongs. It would become fat and corrupt.

This is also the reason why the 1st amendment was created. It was not for seperation of Church and State, as that is nowhere in the Constitution. It was created so that our Federal Govt couldn't prevent Americans from worshiping their own religion, as well as speak out for and against the Govt. Notice that in pre-invasion Iraq, nobody dared speak out against Saddam, even with the truth. He controlled the information. Very similar to N. Korea. N. Korea limits the information that its citizens can give out. This limits people from speaking against them, and realizing that there is a better way.

The freedom of speach is really so that when a leader becomes corrupt, we can speak out amongst ourselves, and rectify the situation. We have many different ways of doing that, from voting to impeachment.

But the framers of the Constitution also realized that an unarmed society would be defenseless against a corrupt government. In fact, this has been repeated time and time again in history. An unarmed populance can do nothing when a leader becomes a dictator.

So our fore-fathers wrote in the Bill of Rights, in their own language of the time, that we all have the right to bear arms. The same writers of the BOR also wrote in other places the reasons for this, so it would be perfectly clear to us.

Most of us realize that the one thing that protects America from herself, is the BOR, and specifically, the 1st and 2nd amendments. The 1st so that we can speak out against our Government, and the 2nd in case the Government doesn't listen.

If the Government were ever to try to remove the 2nd amendment, you can be sure that the 1st wouldn't be too far behind.

If you think that this is a far fetched conspiracy, just look at other nations during the 20th century. USSR, China, Korea, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Haiti, Iraq. The list could go on and on and on.

So this is probably the primary reason why we are so protective of our 2nd amendment rights.

Other reasons are also equally valid. Home defense, defense while out on the town, hunting, shooting games. They are all valuable reasons to have firearms.

Remember, the next time that you think that we don't need military rifles, remember it was our armed populance that prevented WWII from being fought on our soil. Instead, with a few exceptions, it was fought on others soil.

How do I come to that conclusion?

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Welcome to The High Road. Ignore those who attack you for not understanding. You haven't been exposed to the reasons why firearm ownership is important....you have only been exposed half-truths (and many lies) regarding the perils of firearm ownership.

I.G.B.

Carlos
May 11, 2004, 12:46 AM
There are a bunch of Highroaders who shoot at some dump near Portland.

LMAO. Yes, the Infamous Dump (rock quarry) Gang.

Perhaps I should take the young man shooting? Would have to have some serious parental permission and/or a guardian present to play with me and the boys.

Loud: One time out shooting might/will make a believer of you. However, playing violent games and guns are two worlds apart - one is fantasy, the other is stark reality and responsibility.

Guns ain't no game.

4v50 Gary
May 11, 2004, 01:15 AM
You said that handguns kill people and imply that they have no legitimate purpose. Well, you've heard enough of the "sporting" argument and the "self defense" argument.

I'm going to take a slightly different track. Consider this: Some people need to be killed and there is nothing morally repugnant about it. :eek: Yep. Think about it. Some people don't deserve to live. Now, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin and other despots all deserve a bullet but I'm talking about non-governmental individuals who as depraved individuals prey upon society as a means of pecuniary gain or to satisfy their need for power or because they inherently evil:

1) Bad man robs restaurant and pistol whips the cashier. Senior citizens with handguns shoots the bad man before he hurts the cashier further or injure anyone else.
2) One bad man is unhappy that his girlfriend is breaking up with him. She gets a handgun and a restraining order. One night, he forces her off the road and blocks her car and jumps onto her hood with his gun in his hand. She shoots first and the bad man is no more.
3) Bad man who steals a car shoots at police officers. Police officers shoot back in self defence and kills the bad man.
4) Bad man who is a serial rapist breaks into a house to rape a woman but is killed by her instead.

Would you prefer to stand by and helplessly watch any of these bad men perform their evil deeds on others? If you believe that the life of these bad men is more important than the safety and well being of their victims, I suggest that you reexamine your own morals.

As for myself, I don't like the idea of hurting anyone but am pragmatic enough to realize that society that tolerates violent crimes against innocent victims/citizens is a society unworthy of its citizens. Would you prefer to live in such a society? I don't. Some people need to be killed and there is nothing morally repugnant about it.

BTW, if you want to quote me, do so in its entirety please and not in "sound bites" to misrepresent what I've said here. Thanks.

And LoudDog, welcome to THR. Polite discourse even if it is from an unpopular perspective is welcomed here.

Loud Dogg
May 11, 2004, 01:17 AM
Hello again,

Yes... I started disliking guns for because they kill people. And I also have a spelling problem because I’m German. But after watching "bowling for columbine" I saw what guns do when they are in the wrong hands. I am a true fan of Michael more (so don’t discredit him). But hits made me think. What is the point of the man who leads the NRA to won so many guns when never being assaulted. And because I am Lutheran, I see killing (good or bad guys) wrong. Because god will judge them.

And if some guy will try to kill me and I have a gun in my hand I would not shoot, even when it’s my family at stake, because its god’s choice of what happens. And as long as I don’t kill anyone I will be on my way to heaven.

Enough with religion.

I would like to see guns banned, but my mind is changing, why not have a required lisence (like a car linseed) for people who own guns. I know there is a license now, but it needs to be stricter and more limited. (Such as in Germany)

thanks for understanding my opinion and explaining me what really is the thing with guns. I will continue with posting on these forums

Loud Dogg
May 11, 2004, 01:23 AM
...And please, don’t refer the past to why you think its ok to own guns, I know American history. But for the teenagers now, we see that as a bunch of bull???? because those were muskets, not some lock that would accidentally kill little children.

4v50 Gary
May 11, 2004, 01:28 AM
Ah, religion. Christianity teaches us (per the 10 Commandments) "Thou shalt not kill." O.K., but as any good historian would do, let's look at the source. The source is from the Jews and so go ask a Jew what commandments were handed down by Moses. You'll be told, "Thou shalt not slay."

The distinction is that the "slay" to the Jews infers killing for evil purposes. It recognize an individual's right to self defense including killing one's assailant.

Which is the greater sin? To watch one's family killed before one's own eye and not intervene or to kill the would be murderer first? If the former is preferred, the Pope should send his Swiss guards packing. Same thing with all the executive protection details used by heads of states worldwide. Why bother since they should all go to heaven with clean hands?

(BTW, I like flintlock muskets and fully automatic firearms. Both are fun and you should try them sometime.)

buy guns
May 11, 2004, 01:37 AM
And if some guy will try to kill me and I have a gun in my hand I would not shoot, even when it’s my family at stake, because its god’s choice of what happens. And as long as I don’t kill anyone I will be on my way to heaven.

no offense but im glad youre not a part of my family.

Loud Dogg
May 11, 2004, 01:40 AM
I see what you mean. I actually do.

But when did something like THAT happen here in America? And how many times dose something like THAT happen here?

I still don’t see the point of handguns. Somehow I must understand what it is about those compact little machines that would put the life out of anyone. There is a love with guns though, same thing with cars.

But when some guy is stalking your girlfriend (somehow I always hear that story from someone who owns a gun). But maybe its paranoia. Cause I think your 9mm won't solve the problem.

I would like to hear a story that states the facts but without supporting a side. But so far I haven’t found or thought of one yet.

Unlucky
May 11, 2004, 01:44 AM
But after watching "bowling for columbine" I saw what guns do when they are in the wrong hands.

What did the law do to keep them out of those hands? Nothing.

I am a true fan of Michael more (so don’t discredit him).

He's discredited himself, but whether or not you're a fan has little bearing on his truthfulness, but rather speaks to your ignorance.

And if some guy will try to kill me and I have a gun in my hand I would not shoot, even when it’s my family at stake, because its god’s choice of what happens. And as long as I don’t kill anyone I will be on my way to heaven.

:rolleyes:

And pretty damned quick I might add.

I'd say that you're going to Hell instead for not honoring your obligation to your family and allowing harm to come to them.

And because I am Lutheran, I see killing (good or bad guys) wrong. Because god will judge them.

Martin Luther didn't have much problem with killing (or sanctioning it).

Would you call the police to protect you against a criminal knowing that they may use deadly force to do so? How do you feel about condemning THEIR souls to damnation through your actions when they uphold their duty?

I know there is a license now, but it needs to be stricter and more limited. (Such as in Germany)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Berlin has a substantial murder rate and it is only increasing, yet guns are strictly regulated, while in America more citizens can carry concealed weapons all the time and the crime rate is decreasing.

...And please, don’t refer the past to why you think its ok to own guns, I know American history. But for the teenagers now, we see that as a bunch of bull???? because those were muskets, not some lock that would accidentally kill little children.

That's why you're teenagers and don't hold political power. We'll discuss this again when you have a family to protect, more life experience and less brainwashing from your teachers, and you pay your own way in life.

It would be interesting to note that lotsa folks died from improper handling of muskets and many were children. Accidental gun deaths, AFAIK, are trending downward and would likely decrease further if Eddie Eagle were allowed in more schools, rather than being excluded so left-wing "educators" can dance around the bodies of children and advance their anti-gun agenda on children's corpses.

k8ysv
May 11, 2004, 01:47 AM
Loud Dogg, I respect you for your honesty and your desire to learn more given your beliefs. I will say though that if you are using "Bowling For Columbine" or ANYTHING by Michael Moore as a basis for beliefs you may need to look elsewhere for a more accurate source.

We here in America are blessed with a Bill of Rights to our Constitution which guarantees a right to free speech. Unfortunately, it's a right to FREE speech, not CORRECT speech. Mr. Moore is not exactly a bastion of truth.

Another remark: History is indeed known. The specifics are different now (we have semi-automatics instead of muskets) but the one thing that will never change is human nature. It's is not evil weapons that cause tyranny, it is evil hearts. Tyranny was with us when all we had were stones, it will be here when we have particle-beam pistols. The important thing is that we have the tools with which to stave off tyranny. I submit that there is NO difference between historical times and now. The need for a strong populace is NO less than it ever was.

As for your religious beliefs, I also respect them. Killing is indeed wrong. Unfortunately, I would rather kill a criminal intent on harming my child than to risk the death of that child. If God would punish me for that, then I believe I would not care to know Him.

Criminals respect nothing. They fear injury or death to themselves. If I cannot prevent becoming their victim with respect, I will do it by force. Merely carrying a gun for defensive purposes does not engender a desire to use it. In fact, quite the contrary. I NEVER want to use my gun against another human being. But I will if I must. Without undue hesitation. This does not mean that I am out looking for trouble, but that I am prepared when trouble comes looking for me.

Professing a dislike of guns is like saying "I don't like hammers". It is not the gun but rather the individual person using it that is the problem. As has been pointed out, there are a multitude of other uses for a handgun OTHER than killing people. Do you dislike target shooting? Hunting? collecting relics?

I would love to say that I'm in favor of your proposal for a licensing structure to own firearms. Unfortunately, history has proven time and again that any such scheme will invariably be used as a vehicle for total diarmament. This cannot be allowed as it then renders us impotent as a free people.

Loud Dogg
May 11, 2004, 01:48 AM
I wrote that I would not shoot the guy with intending to KILL him. So am I still going to hell? and yes my teachers DO say allot that my believes are on.

Unlucky
May 11, 2004, 01:54 AM
But when some guy is stalking your girlfriend (somehow I always hear that story from someone who owns a gun). But maybe its paranoia. Cause I think your 9mm won't solve the problem.

Of course it will. "Problem" attempts severe bodily harm, target of "problem" shoots "problem." "Problem" solved. As opposed to restraining orders, short jail terms and other "solutions" to the problem. If the "problem" wanted to find a real solution, he'd get on with his life and not risk it trying to harm others.

I still don’t see the point of handguns. Somehow I must understand what it is about those compact little machines that would put the life out of anyone. There is a love with guns though, same thing with cars.

They're for when you can't carry a rifle or shotgun, either of which would be preferred to a handgun and either of which are far more deadly than a handgun. If we're basing our prohibitions on firearms on their deadliness, then lets skip the BS and ban these too.

k8ysv
May 11, 2004, 01:54 AM
For clarification, those of us who carry guns for defense do NOT shoot someone with the intention of killing them. We do it to STOP the threat posed by their actions. There is a difference. If the threat is stopped and the perpetrator is not dead, we are still done shooting. Killing is not the intent. Preventing harm to come to ourselves and our families is.

4v50 Gary
May 11, 2004, 01:58 AM
Loud Dogg - of the incidents I mentioned, they're all real as reported with little bias.

Here's another tidbit: My friend was going to be mugged in Oakland, CA. He began rummaging for his gun in his duffel bag. When the ne'er do wells (plural) saw the glow of his night sights, they ran away. My friend never even had to pull the gun out. They wanted an easy victim.

You're young and I doubt if you've had any world experience. You say that even if you had a gun and could defend your family, you wouldn't shoot with intent to kill. Nothing wrong with that Loud Dogg. I don't think any of us would shoot with intent to kill. We believe as you do Loud Dogg. We don't want to go around killing people.

If we must use deadly force to defend ourselves and the application of deadly force results in the death of our assailant, that is a consequence many of us accept. That is something you must also accept if you, as you said you would, shoot without intent to kill.

BTW, I don't think you'll go to hell either if you had to defend yourself and in doing so, killed your assailant. It wouldn't matter if you used a gun, a knife, a stick, a rock, a chair, car, cane, brick, or your fists & feet.

GigaBuist
May 11, 2004, 02:04 AM
As a Christian I grappled for a bit with the issues you've spoken about before. I was -very- young though and it wasn't a hard decision to make. I won't clutter the thread with that, however you are free to PM (Private Message) me and we can take it from there.

I would like to see guns banned, but my mind is changing, why not have a required lisence (like a car linseed) for people who own guns. I know there is a license now, but it needs to be stricter and more limited. (Such as in Germany)

It's good that you're seeing legitimate reasons for ownership of firearms -- my primary one being self defense against criminals and the government. The former is far more likely than the latter -- however they're both very valid reasons. I've got quite a few years left in me (God willing) and a whole nation can be turned on it's head in that time.

At any rate, the licensing thing is interesting. Some or our states do require license to own firearms. Others require you to "register" them -- my homestate of Michigan is one of them, but only for handguns. It doesn't really seem to be doing much of any good though. Detroit, the largest city in Michigan, has been known nationally as the "murder capital" of the country some years -- especially during the 80's and 90's. The handgun registration laws have been on the books far before that time. Basically, they did no good. They do however annoy the living crap out of me! :D

I'll go back to your original question though, and that is why people "love" guns. I've spoken with many other Germans on the subject, as I used to work for a German owned engineering company, and the general feeling in Germany seems to be that all Americans are gun-toting people that won't part with their firearms unless you "take them from my Cold, Dead, Hands."

By now you've probably realized that that isn't the predominate thought pattern in this country. Very, very few people are that adament about the right to own firearms. This is one of those groups though. It's hard to find a group of people that hold the natural right to self defense closer to their heart than this crowd. Generally speaking we own multiple firearms. We keep one at hand while at home, and where permissable we keep one on our hip as we venture out for the day. We "live up" to the typical American Cowboy image, for lack of a better word.

We are also a very civil crowd -- which is not the general image that we're often associated with. Consider this: you've come onto this board and essentially stated (very politely and properly) that you completely disagree with us and that we're all wrong. That's like walking into a Church saying God doesn't exist. I haven't read every post word for word, but I feel it's safe to assume that the respones have been very civil thus far. If i'm not mistaken people are even willing to take you out to enjoy their pasttime with them.

To us a non-shooter is like a non-believer to a Christian. Our hearts weep because we see so many lost souls choosing a path that leads only to abuse at the hands of criminals and becoming subjects of a ruling class. Just as a drunken fool is subject to the whims of anybody with proper balance and coordination an unarmed man is subject to the whims of any armed man.

While you'll often see us bemoan the current state of gun laws in this country, or in our various states, I sincerely believe that the goal of the average THR member isn't to keep their own firearms -- it's to ensure that every reasonable citizen of the United States of American (and the World) has access to them. We rejoice at reports of new shooters being welcomed into "our" world. We discuss how to get people into the shooting sports. We don't do this to further our own agenda, per say, but rather to strengthen the populace as a whole. One man with two rifles isn't near as powerful as two men with one rifle each.

It's not the firearms that we're in love with -- it's freedom. I don't love my firearms, nor do I love my Bible. However, I love what they stand for and represent.

Don Gwinn
May 11, 2004, 02:17 AM
But after watching "bowling for columbine" I saw what guns do when they are in the wrong hands. I am a true fan of Michael more (so don’t discredit him).
Think for a moment about how that sounds. You like the guy, so even though we know he has been proven to be a liar, we shouldn't discredit him. Why? So you can go on liking him and not have to think about the fact that he's a fraud? If you don't want to see the evidence "the other side" has, as you said you did in your first post, why are you here?

The fact is that Bowling for Columbine was largely fictional. It was not a documentary in any sense of that word. He made up statistics. He faked Charlton Heston's speech by cobbling together unrelated sequences from two different speeches over a year apart. Trust me, if I pored over everything you've ever said in public and then patched different statements together out of context, I could make you look like anything from a Nazi to a saint. That's all Moore did. He also lied about the supposed gun rally he claims was held after the shooting in Flint--it did not happen. The main is a liar and the film is a fraud. I don't say that to hurt your feelings, but I'm not going to lie to save them, either.

And because I am Lutheran, I see killing (good or bad guys) wrong. Because god will judge them.

Again, I don't wish to give offense, but I feel compelled to respond. You are entitled to your opinion on the morality of killing, but there are plenty of Lutherans who would not agree that the Lutheran faith demands such a radical pacifism. Even if being a Lutheran meant you had to embrace total pacifism in that way, I am not a Lutheran and don't wish to be forced to live like one. What you do in your personal life is, of course, your business.
Shooting a "bad guy" is not done with a view to killing him; it is done to STOP him from doing whatever evil it is that he's doing to you at that moment. If he dies, he dies. It is not your purpose to kill him when you fire. As long as he stops what he's doing, that's all that matters.
You do not judge a man's behavior by shooting in self defense. You act to preserve yourself. The harm done to him is incidental to that purpose. If and when a method of self defense is developed which is not harmful to the attacker, but is as efficient and effective as a firearm, I'll gladly use it. It has not come along as of yet. If you really want to convince me not to shoot someone who is trying to hurt me or my family, you would do better to apply your energies and intelligence to inventing such a tool.

I would like to see guns banned, but my mind is changing, why not have a required lisence (like a car linseed) for people who own guns. I know there is a license now, but it needs to be stricter and more limited. (Such as in Germany)
So many misunderstandings. First of all, no there is no license now. SOME states require one; my home state of Illinois and New Jersey are the only two I know. The licenses are referred to as Firearm Owner IDentification or FOID cards. They are pointless. None of the states surrounding Illinois require such ridiculous permission slips, and all five have fractions of the violent crime and murder rates that we do.
The reason we don't require a license to own a gun "just like a car" is simple--no license is required to own a car. You don't need a driver's license nor license plates to own a car. You only need them to drive it on public roads. Buying a car does not require a license, background check or any of the other nonsense, and though you usually do have the title changed, you won't be arrested if you don't. The worst that will happen if you aren't also breaking other laws is that the state may not recognize that you are the legal owner.

those were muskets, not some lock that would accidentally kill little children.
The language barrier has arisen again at "locks that would accidentally kill little children." Not sure what that means. I can assure you, however, that accidents with muskets were quite common. There are two ways to find out if a musket is loaded, and only two: you can either prime it and pull the trigger, or you can put the ramrod down the barrel and measure how far it goes. If it comes up an inch or so short of the length of the barrel, the gun is probably loaded.
Lots of people forgot muskets were loaded. Modern firearms, by comparison, are a breeze to check.

But when did something like THAT happen here in America? And how many times dose something like THAT happen here?
Something like what? I think there may be too many conversations going on at once.

But when some guy is stalking your girlfriend (somehow I always hear that story from someone who owns a gun).
My wife HAS been stalked.
I have been to divorce court with a friend whose ex-husband threatened and attempted to intimidate her with suggestions that he would offer her physical violence.
One of our moderators here, Tamara, was forced to use a pistol to defend herself from her roommate's stalker. She didn't have to shoot him, thank goodness, but she came as close as anyone can without having to fire and it was the sight of the gun that stopped him after he had taken a face full of pepper spray and come back up fighting mad. You can read the story, called "The Day I Discovered that HCI Wants Me Dead" by searching for that title.

I would like to hear a story that states the facts but without supporting a side. But so far I haven’t found or thought of one yet.
That would only be possible if both sides of the argument were equally true and valid. By definition, if one side is correct and the other is incorrect, then stories that are factual (and complete) would support the correct side and not the incorrect side.
Perhaps you mean you wish to speak to someone who will state the facts without concern for whether they support one side or the other. I refer you to Lott, Mustard and a bunch of others, all of who started out either neutral or mildly to radically anti-gun and were forced to change their minds. Also among that number is noted Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, who admitted several years ago that although he hated the fact and had spent years trying to prove otherwise, the Constitution of these United States does in fact guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Tribe would rather have gargled crushed glass than admit that publicly; it was only his professional pride that drove him to it.


Finally, I'll just say this: your family may not be worth defending, but mine is. My sons and my wife are precious to me, and if anyone wishes to hurt them he'll have to go through me. If I have to choose between Hell and letting some thug rape my wife or beat my sons, I'll go with a smile on my face.
"I pay it gladly."

sm
May 11, 2004, 02:20 AM
I appreciate the fact you had read all the posts and links provided, and stayed around to discuss. An open mind is a good thing. I see you are 15 and from Germany. I also compliment you on our language.

My parents had for me a High Standard Sentinel 22 9 shot revolver. when I arrived home from being born. I am the eldest child, a male and the only sibling to have known a Grandparent - My maternal grandmother, she died when I was 5. I remember 3 things about her. Getting into the Singer Sewing machine and playing with the foot peddle and really goofing up the bobbin. She reading to me. She letting me "help her" shoot that revolver. Yes I was young.

Now I was raised in a Baptist church. I was told just like 4v50 Gary stated about the 10 Commandments. Translation meant "do not murder". Elsewhere is was written that one sometimes has to "defend oneself" or that of family.

Gonna tread on a topic that is often a no-no here. I ask for some leeway from the moderators. This is my interpretation.

Yes there is the "faith" and "things happen for a reason". I will use the term Diety ( not out of disrespect from my upbringing - but as respect for other's beliefs...learned about other religions and found some interesting paralells btw).

Diety expects us to "take action". Prayer and following teachings , morals and all is one thing. If I am stuck on a railroad track and a train is coming, pray all I want, Diety expects me to "take an action", now it may be that my time is up, then again it may not be. I can wave a shirt, cut my foot off with a knife...something. Now if a miracle occurs - so be it. I may or may not lose my foot. That act of "faith" maybe all the Diety wants to see...and me taking action.

I am expected to be prepared and be responsible.

I had younger sibs at home one night to babysit. The parents went to run a quick errand.[emergency deal] Riots has been happening in various areas of the city. I used that handgun to protect my sibs and myself when the front door came crashing in.

Many years later I would turn 15.

The fact is we only had two firearms growing up, both handguns. I was given one at birth. I was taught the stuff at church, and I was taught to shoot. We go the Preachers property where he had a fish pond...and a safe shooting area with a berm. One might be surprised what kind of teachings a country boy Preacher can share while giving lesson with a Firearm btw. He could shoot!!

Now what would have happened if I had not had the ability to use a handgun to DEFEND ?

Crime is not respector of age, race, religion, gender, time or place.

At one time I worked in the main OR of a major hospital. Look at the dead single mom whom had her head bashed in with a hammer. She had to wait to get a handgun , waiting until payday. She was being stalked by an abusive ex husbund, she had the restraining order on him.

Oh we were all angered. We all had tears in our eye when the Ladies mom had to tell the little girl what had happened.

Go visit a hospital, I dare you. And see for yourself the effects of hammers, knives, ball bats, propane hand held torches, axe handles....etc. All legal normal everyday items used to injure and maim folks .

It is ALWAYS the intent of user - NOT the item used.

4v50 Gary
May 11, 2004, 02:24 AM
Now, if we're talking muskets and the accidental death of children, you find that there were negligent discharges resulting in the death of children even in the days of muskets.

Have you ever seen one of those Bernard Cornwall shows about rifleman Richard Sharpe and the Rifle Brigade? Well, the rifle they used is known to us as the Baker Rifle. The gun's maker, Ezekiel Baker wrote a book in 1811 in which he cautions that all parents should teach their children firearms safety. Baker goes on to cite some accidents that happened in the early portion of the 19th century. I've read of other incidents from the same period. They use to print a small paragraph in the newspapers back then reporting these accidents.

The book is "Remarks on the Rifle-Gun" (11th ed) and you can probably get it through an interlibrary loan.

(sm - good post :cool: ).

itgoesboom
May 11, 2004, 02:24 AM
But when did something like THAT happen here in America? And how many times dose something like THAT happen here?



According to the FBI and the Department of Justice, Firearms are used in defensive purposes roughly 2million times per year.

Obviously, not all of these uses result in death, or even the firearm being shot. Many criminals run at the first sign that their prey can defend themselves. So don't.

Check the DOJ statistics on how many accidental deaths are the results of firearms, and how many from criminal usage, and compare that to the 2 million lives that it saves every year.

The gun debate really boils down to rational statistics vs hysterical emotion. Anti-Gunners claim that if guns were banned, criminals wouldn't use them anymore, that they would magically just turn them in. What makes you think that someone who breaks laws know will magically decide to follow them in future.

Also, look at other countries. If you were to be found with a single bullet in Jamaica, you would be sentenced very harshly, I believe it is life in prison. That is how strict their gun control is. Yet they have one of the highest rates of murder of any nation.

Also, you told me not to preach history, since you learned in School. History really does repeat itself, you can't forget that. And you don't think that guns in the past were used accidently? Do you know who Chuck Yeager is? The man who first broke the sound barrier, the WWII flying ace. When he was a child in the 20's, his brother accidently shot and killed his baby sister. Firearm accidents have been around ever since firearms have.

What makes you think that the past won't repeat? After all, WWI was the war to end all wars. There would never be another war after that. And WWII, with a atomic finish was surely the end to all future wars, surely no-one would go against a weapon like that. Get it? We all think that we are at the pinnacle of society, but we forget, that others have been there before us.

And violence has been around since Cain and Able. What was accomplised then with a rock and sticks can now be achieved by many other weapons.

The difference is that those who are doing the attacking often pick out weaker, frail targets. They know what to look for, they have developed their instincts. Firearms equal the playing field.

You are a Christian? Glad to hear it. Exodus 22:2-3 tells us: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Once again, I hope that we are helping you understand. Whether or not guns are ever banned, and believe me, that is what the left is trying to do, many have admitted to it, criminals will always get them. They are too easy to import, too easy to make. The genie has been let out of the bottle, just like the atomic bomb. It will always be there.

I.G.B.

joab
May 11, 2004, 02:40 AM
I am a true fan of Michael more (so don’t discredit him). But hits made me think. Far more learned people than I have already dicredited this manipulator of the truth, including most of the people that were in his "documentary"
But when did something like THAT happen here in America? And how many times dose something like THAT happen here? look here (http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm)
But when some guy is stalking your girlfriend (somehow I always hear that story from someone who owns a gun). But maybe its paranoia. Cause I think your 9mm won't solve the problem.
about 10 years ago my ex-wife was able to ward off an attacker with her handgun, she chose not to shoot him. He later brutally raped and murdered a young mother in the area.
I would like to hear a story that states the facts but without supporting a side. But so far I haven’t found or thought of one yet. And you never will if you don't look . I have seen many stories in print, even in our local liberal newspaper
And because I am Lutheran, I see killing (good or bad guys) wrong. Because god will judge them.
Being Lutheran has nothing to do with that mindset. In fact I live in a heavily Lutheran community, an ex girlfriend of 7 years was devout Lutheran and I have never heard that philosophy from her or any of her family.

sm
May 11, 2004, 02:54 AM
And because I am Lutheran, I see killing (good or bad guys) wrong. Because god will judge them.
One of the older guys I hung around with as a kid [ hey I went to shoot however and whenever I could] was Luthern. He was always taking a bunch of out to shoot. I forget which conflict he was in, probably Korea. So yeah he killed. His wife was Luthern as well. She used a handgun to change the mind of a burglar one night. She didn't fire a shot, made it real clear she would. The Guy was caught ...he had been committing some break -ins and rapes.

He figured he had killed and survived for a reason. Figured the wife did what she did for a reason. Diety had a use for them and kinda hard to do "Diety Work" if one is dead. Makes sense to me.

Get a copy of Innocents Betrayed. This Documentary is FACT based. Heck do a special showing for teacher and classmates.

Unlike the one that has proven to have falsehoods you mentioned by Moore.

Hey I am an older returning student. All my life I have heard and it is true today.

Just because a campus building has "Education" etched in stone, brick, or signage does NOT mean what you learn is true...or that you will actually learn anything useful in the real world.

pax
May 11, 2004, 02:57 AM
And because I am Lutheran, I see killing (good or bad guys) wrong. Because god will judge them.
Ask yourself this:

If Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a good Lutheran) had succeeded in killing Hitler -- stopping the Holocaust and saving a lot of lives -- do you really and honestly believe that would have been wrong?

If so, you need to rethink your moral compass, because it is pointing the wrong direction.

pax

Justin
May 11, 2004, 03:02 AM
I wrote that I would not shoot the guy with intending to KILL him. So am I still going to hell? and yes my teachers DO say allot that my believes are on. Nobody is forcing you to own a gun, or keep one for self-defense. I fail to see where you get the moral authority to prohibit me from having one.

sm
May 11, 2004, 03:02 AM
Hey pax, say...don't you have some boys...under the age of 15? ;)

Croyance
May 11, 2004, 05:18 AM
I am a true fan of Michael more (so don’t discredit him). In addition to what has been said about this, I add:
You question the beliefs of others, but refuse to examine your own beliefs? I am to assume that you will keep an open mind, when you state your own close-mindedness? This is already an unequal relationship.
Though you may not agree with what others have to say, examining opposing viewpoints can only lead to a greater understanding of a subject. Also it leads to a better understanding of why you believe in something.
But hits made me think. What is the point of the man who leads the NRA to won so many guns when never being assaulted. Why want more than one car or more than one girlfriend? People do want, covetousness is part of human nature. Having more than one gun doesn't really make them more dangerous. The intention of using guns to harm others coupled with the skill to do so makes a person dangerous. In that event, materials from a hardware store makes him dangerous - potentially a mass murderer. Why would being a previous victim of crime justify multiple guns if nothing else does?
And if some guy will try to kill me and I have a gun in my hand I would not shoot, even when it’s my family at stake, because its god’s choice of what happens. That is your choise. Why am I bound to your decisions? Can vegetarians ban the production and sale of meat? My god helps those who help themselves. If I was wrong, I will be judged and the criminal rewarded - but I doubt it. Even so, if I am sent to hell for protecting my family, so be it.

Croyance
May 11, 2004, 05:20 AM
As a side note, I do not love my guns. I do enjoy them however.

djf
May 11, 2004, 06:59 AM
Loud Dogg,

I am also a Lutheran (LCMS since 1985).

Surely you understand that in the situation you described (somebody attacking your family) that you would be guilty of the murder of your family if you had the means to prevent them from being killed by another attacker.

Reccomended reading would be of course The Book of Concord, and Luther's explanation to the fifth commandment in the small catechism.

EDITED TO ADD:

P.S.
Am I the only one who thinks it hilariously funny that the left constantly complains that we (right wing christians) are trying to force our moral values on the rest of hunamity, and then they turn around and tells us how morally bankrupt we are for owning guns and training to use them. Talk about hypocrisy.

P.P.S.

If you like Michael Moore, and honestly want a second opinion, check out http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

I think you will find Moore is ummmm slightly less than honest.

P.P.P.S.

Something to drill into your head, repeat after me, WEAPONS DETERMINE THE TACTICS USED. WEAPONS DO NOT DETERMINE THE INTENT TO KILL. Repeat until you understand.

RepublicanMan
May 11, 2004, 09:29 AM
I see what you mean. I actually do.

But when did something like THAT happen here in America? And how many times dose something like THAT happen here?



But what you are failing to realize is that there's a very high probability that stuff like that doesn't happen here because we are allowed to own firearms.

Carbon_15
May 11, 2004, 09:56 AM
, we see that as a bunch of bull???? because those were muskets http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_quills.jpg

You say that you hate guns, but I think you mean that you hate violence...and to that you will find very little oposition amongst gun owners. To assume that banning guns will impact the level of violence in America is flawed logic. The most violent and murderous times in the worlds history included NO FIREARMS. Infact, your Germanic barbarian ancesters were pretty good at hacking people to bits with various non-gun weapons.

MrMurphy
May 11, 2004, 11:01 AM
Including wiping out an entire Roman legion (no small feat) due to their own stupidity (commander-wise), very good German tactics and a large number of wild hairy Germans using good unit tactics and large amounts of sharp, pointy and edged weapons.

Guns would have made it a bit quicker and a bit less messy but affected the outcome very little.



And as to Biblical teachings, yes, you are allowed to defend yourself. No, you are not allowed to be a murderer or mass murderer, self defense does not follow this definition.

And remember what Jesus himself said before sending the disciples out on their own in Luke, I believe chapter 24. "If you do not have a sword, sell your tunic and buy one" and the disciples said "Here, Lord, we have two" and he replied "That is enough".

Obviously he meant "I'm not going to be around in person to take care of you all the time, be prepared to defend yourselves if you have to".

Disagree with us all you like but don't try and disarm us because you feel like being an unarmed victim. Talk to us in about 10 years...

gggman
May 11, 2004, 12:23 PM
Loud Dogg, I would like to ask you a question.
I like to go for a walk every morning when I get up at 5:00 AM. I walk two miles, and I live in a remote area in the country. If I were accosted by a pack of coyotes, would I, in you're opinion, be justified in using a handgun to defend myself? According to your hero, Michael Moore, I would not. I would be forced to cower in my home and buy a treadmill.
What about my sister, who works until midnight in the city. If she were attacked by a gang of street thugs while walking to her car, with the intent of gang raping her, would she be justified in using a handgun to defend herself?
No, you say? She didn't go there with the intent to kill anyone. If someone dies as a result of her defending her right to go safely home after work, that wasn't her choice. That was the choice of the thugs who attacked her.
I feel sorry for your future wife and children, because in my opinion, you not only have a legal right to defend them from harm, you have a moral obligation to do so. If someone that you love is ever attacked, and you do nothing to defend them, I wonder if you will be able to live with the choice you made. You may be stuck wallowing in your greif for the rest of your life, instead of using your legal rights to stop a senseless attack.:banghead:

Carlos
May 11, 2004, 02:08 PM
And if some guy will try to kill me and I have a gun in my hand I would not shoot, even when it’s my family at stake, because its god’s choice of what happens. And as long as I don’t kill anyone I will be on my way to heaven.

God does not say you have to be a sacrificial lamb, LoudDogg. God gave you the ability to make choices to protect yourself and your family. Lots of evil in today's world.

Personally, I'd pull the trigger to rid the world of a dirtbag, and I truly believe God would smile at my decision to defend myself and my family.

Now, again, the offer stands. If you ever want to shoot a pistol or rifle to see what it's all about, PM me and I'll meet you and your dad at either The Dump (Estacada area) or my local pistol range in Portland. The latter might be more convenient for all.

Good thread everybody.

bogie
May 11, 2004, 02:13 PM
Several times, I've seen the comment "guns kill people."

Guns propel a small heavy object at great speed. The person who points the gun and pulls the trigger is the killer. And often they'd use clubs, knives, or other implements...

One other thing to keep in mind for those abroad: The United States is not nearly as exciting as our television shows would lead one to believe. But we've got some not-nice folks, as is the case with pretty much every other country... I'd have to assume that the Vatican has pretty much all nice folks, and I'd probably also assume that Lichtenstein is pretty much okay, but if you've only got a hundredth of one percent of nasties, when you look at numbers of over 200 million folks, you've got a lot of nasties.

China must be interesting...

Gewehr98
May 11, 2004, 02:45 PM
And because I am Lutheran, I see killing (good or bad guys) wrong. Because god will judge them.

I don't ever remember learning that in the Catechism. Matter of fact, instead of finishing the Lutheran Seminary in Mequon after my vicar year, I joined the Air Force. And when I talk to one of my best friends whom I would have graduated with, who is now a Lutheran pastor with two congregations of his own, I always bring the subject up about my being a B-52H bomber jock during Desert Storm. The bottom line is, the synod has no moral objections to Lutheran members dropping ordnance on our enemies in the prosecution of war. And self-defense poses no real objections, either. :scrutiny:

(That was probably way too much information for my fellow THR members, who already thought they had G-98 figured out... :D)

k8ysv
May 11, 2004, 03:07 PM
Here's something to think about, LoudDogg:

10 years from now, you and your pretty young wife and your beautiful young daughter are sitting at home enjoying a leisurely afternoon. A drug-crazed, psychotic ex-con decides to break into your house (they call it "Home Invasion" now). He repeatedly rapes your wife while forcing you to watch, then kills her and your daughter before finally killing you. You have no guns, because you don't like them, and even if you did you would not have used one because of your aforementioned religious beliefs.

Your souls ascend to heaven, where you're greeted by God. What do you think God would say to you? Would He be happy to see you and your wife and young daughter? Would He be glad that you allowed them to die? Or would He be angry because He gave you the tools and the strength to preserve the lives of the three of you and you did nothing?

God does not impose His will upon us. He gave us our OWN free will so that He wouldn't have to. Don't hide behind God.

Mute
May 11, 2004, 03:18 PM
I should know better but...

Welcom to THR Louddogg.

From the Christian point of view, pacifism is not Christian doctrine in any way, shape or form. God has made us stewards here on earth, and that stewardship includes responsiblities for the people around us as well as the material things. Purposely choosing not to protect these people based on the false idea that pacifism is biblical is a failure of stewardship on the grandest scale. Might I suggest your read the following Essay on Pacifism (http://www.suarezinternational.com/pacifismstudy.html) and decide for yourself if God will greet you as a good and faithful servant when you come before his judgement and you have chosen, in your life, not to protect the people God has put into your care. Good luck on your research.

Skofnung
May 11, 2004, 04:04 PM
First, let me say this, the following comments are not intended to hurt your feelings:

I will NEVER be able to understand the mindset that you exhibit. I do not use the word never lightly. To be quite honest, I find such a mindset highly repugnant. I can not fathon a man (or a woman for that matter) that would sit idly by and let his/her kin be harmed.

In addition to this, I will NEVER be able to understand the mind of a person that will give up the right of self defense. Violence exists, whether you like it or not. It is not pretty, it is not nice, but it is here to stay. Whether you believe in Special Creation or you believe in Evolution, it is a proven FACT that human on human violence has existed pretty much from the start. This trend shows no sign of slowing down. Thus, I choose to arm myself so that I can resist. Guns are but a portion of my battery. A proper mindset is the most important thing.

You are young. When I was your age, ten whole years ago, I had the same mindset (in this realm) that I do today. Granted, I was raised by shootists (who were individualists to boot), but given some of the life experiences I have had from birth to age 25, had I been raised by turn the other cheek hippies, I would probably have still turned to my current philosophy.

Mr. Moore is a funny man. That does not make him a good man, nor does it make him a good journalist. You like him because you like what he says. That is fine, but that does not make what he says right.

Just remember that a goodly portion of Germany liked what another entertaining fellow had to say 70 years ago. Look how that turned out.

artherd
May 11, 2004, 08:14 PM
And if some guy will try to kill me and I have a gun in my hand I would not shoot, even when it’s my family at stake, because its god’s choice of what happens. And as long as I don’t kill anyone I will be on my way to heaven.

Loud Dogg- I doubt you could suppress your instincts to do right and protect yourself and your loved ones. We didn't survive as a species for so many millions of years by rolling over and dieing.

Do you realize how selfish your statement above is? You would allow, through your failure to act, your family to be slaughtered, so you may go to heaven?

I'm a Lutheran as well. I would never hurt anyone, except if they were going to hurt or kill myself or those I love.

I take responsability for both my ACTIONS, and my FAILURES TO ACT. You cannot have one withought the other.

Kaylee
May 11, 2004, 08:40 PM
do you take ________________ to he your Wife? ("I do") Do you promise to love, honor, cherish and protect her, forsaking all others and holding only unto her?

IMO, the so-called man who won't raise a finger to defend his family is a coward however he rationalizes it as principle, and he doesn't deserve his family or his place in polite society.

-K

"come back with your shield or on it" :)

1911Tuner
May 11, 2004, 08:53 PM
Brother, if ya have to ask, you wouldn't understand the answer.

Hook up with a couple of "gunnies" and go shoot a few pistols and revolvers It might help.

Hunting has not one thing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't
state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods.

Cheers!

Tuner

iapetus
May 12, 2004, 05:11 PM
Hello again, Loud Dogg.

You said you were 15, didn't you?


I would like to see guns banned, but my mind is changing, why not have a required lisence (like a car linseed) for people who own guns. I know there is a license now, but it needs to be stricter and more limited. (Such as in Germany)


When I was your age (I'm 25 now), I thought pretty much the same as you, and for many of the same reasons: "Guns are designed to kill"; "killing is wrong"; "turn the other cheek"; etc. In fact, I often argued on message boards in favour of gun control.

About 3 of 4 years ago, for various reasons, I started to change my mind, and eventually concluded - like you seem to now - that guns are not moraly different to cars (a tool that can be useful or vital, but is dangerous if misused), and should be licensed as cars are.

(That was before I came to The High Road, and realised that even that was too restrictive :D )


I don't necessarily expect to be able to change your mind overnight, but I'll tell you a few more of the things that made me change my mind.



Firstly, I live in a very safe town in a (relatively) safe country, the UK. I do not need a gun, and it is very unlikely I will in the forseable future. However, I came to realise that other people have vastly different circumstances.

Some live in areas far from help (police or otherwise), where there may be dangerous animal, or dangerous humans. I might not need a gun, but there certainly are those who do. Many people of this forum need or have needed one.

Now, some people do need guns, some don't. But who has the right, legally or moraly to say who is allowed one? Who has the right to deny another person the ability to defend themselves, just because "someone" somewhere may misuse a defensive weapon? I eventually realised that the answer is "no-one".


Secondly, there are crime statistics. My country, with strict gun laws, has little gun crime. The USA, with much freer gun laws, has lots of gun crime. Proof that easy availability of guns causes gun crime?

But Switzerland has lots of guns. In fact, almost every houshold, by law, contains a proper, fully-automatic, military assault rifle. (Not one of the tame versions restricted by the US "assault weapon ban"). But they don't have much gun crime.

Jamaica, someone else mentioned, and Mexico both have very strict gun laws. And lots of gun crime. At the very least, this suggests gun laws don't stop gun crime (or at best turn gun-murderers into axe/knife/club/rope murderers).

And although I said the UK had relatively low gun crime, it is increasing. I heard a police spokesman on the radio yesterday saying it had increased 40% in the last two years, and is expected to rise further. In fact, UK gun crime has risen significantly since 1997, when all handguns were banned. Most of this gun crime is related to drugs gangs. I.e. nothing to do with the sort of law-abiding citizen who obeys gun laws, and everything to do with people who's life and livelyhood revolves around smuggling things into the country that they are not supposed to have.


(There is a third major reason, but its rather long to describe, and a bit grim, so I'll leave you to think on what I've said. I'll post the rest later).

1911Tuner
May 12, 2004, 05:48 PM
Howdy again...

Went back and re-read your post and came across the part about...
"Handguns are only designed for killing"...or somethin' of that nature.

Wrong! handguns are by conceptually defensive tools, designed to
keep somebody from killing YOU. They are seriously underpowered,
and their main advantage is that they're portable. You don't have to
go get the pistol. It's right there on your belt.

Rifles, on the other hand, are conceptually offensive tools, designed for
attack, ideally from a distance and from behind cover. If you KNOW that there's going to be trouble, you go and get your rifle. If you're not expecting trouble, but want to be armed in the event an unforseen emergency, you carry your pistol.

Again...The pistol's purpose is to stop an unexpected fight that somebody else starts.

The sporting use of rifles is a spinoff of the original purpose of the rifle,
but it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, any more
than pistol matches have anything in common with the original intent of
the pistol. Simply put...The pistol is a weapon that we carry when carrying
a rifle isn't possible or convenient.

Hope this helps clear it up for ya lad. I also hope that you'll take the time
to explore the recreational use of firearms. It's an enjoyable endeavor.

Tuner

Sean Smith
May 12, 2004, 06:52 PM
And if some guy will try to kill me and I have a gun in my hand I would not shoot, even when it’s my family at stake, because its god’s choice of what happens. And as long as I don’t kill anyone I will be on my way to heaven.

Another claim of moral superiority based on cowardice. Not impressed.

Thumper
May 12, 2004, 06:54 PM
And if some guy will try to kill me and I have a gun in my hand I would not shoot, even when it’s my family at stake, because its god’s choice of what happens. And as long as I don’t kill anyone I will be on my way to heaven.

Wow. Your poor family...

Harold Mayo
May 12, 2004, 07:34 PM
Hey, LoudDogg...?

You're from Germany?

You didn't grow up with many Jewish kids, did you...?:uhoh:

I wonder why that is....?:confused:

Perhaps it's because the government of your homeland once ensured that certain classes/races/religions within it's borders were unarmed and then killed those people when they were unarmed and could put up less of a fight.:scrutiny: :uhoh:

The pattern repeats itself throughout history. Most genocides begin with a disarming of the populace.

Anyway, LD, if all of the people here trying to educate you aren't making a dent, just wait until you get a little life experience under your belt. It'll make all the difference.:evil: :banghead: :what:

Harold Mayo
May 12, 2004, 07:41 PM
Oh, yeah...

Take a look at a GREAT gun-lovin', freedom-lovin' site... www.flashbunny.org


AND...

If you want to hold Germany up as an example of great gun laws and low crime rate, do this little exercise:

Compare the murder rates of the US and Germany in the 20th century. Don't just take the numbers of murders that were officially counted as murders by the police but also take the numbers from the aforementioned genocide. Even if you adjust the numbers so that you get a ratio because of a difference in population, you'll see that the murder rate of Germany is FAR higher than that of the United States.

BluesBear
May 14, 2004, 06:20 AM
And as long as I don’t kill anyone I will be on my way to heaven. But will you get 72 virgins? :neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the "love" with weopons?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!