What is the "love" with weopons?

[4v50 Gary]

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. 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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

Loud Dogg

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]

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 ).

 

[itgoesboom]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Speaking of pax...

Hey pax, say...don't you have some boys...under the age of 15?

 

[Croyance]

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]

As a side note, I do not love my guns. I do enjoy them however.

 

[djf]

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.