Guns, pros and cons!

[Graham]

Religion cannot be argued with; it cannot be reasoned with. It is what it is; there is no room for debate. I live by reason and thought, not millenia-old baseless dogma.

Chris,

I fundamentally agree with you on this point. Whilst most people of a religious bent that I know are happy to discuss faith and agnosticism / atheism, there is a growing minority that take it as an affront if you declare a lack of faith.

Graham.

 

[Nick]

Chris,

Quote:
Originally Posted by aero
Religion cannot be argued with; it cannot be reasoned with. It is what it is; there is no room for debate. I live by reason and thought, not millenia-old baseless dogma.


I fundamentally agree with you on this point. Whilst most people of a religious bent that I know are happy to discuss faith and agnosticism / atheism, there is a growing minority that take it as an affront if you declare a lack of faith.

Graham.

Graham,

Having recently been on an Alpha course I have to disagree with Chris, there was plenty of debate, disagreement and challenges to what was said, in fact it was positively encouraged and appeared to be the main point of the course.

Although I have to admit someone on our course whose husband went on a different course did find there was not much room for debate on his course.

 

[Graham]

Graham,

Having recently been on an Alpha course I have to disagree, there was plenty of debate, disagreement and challenges to what was said, in fact it was positively encouraged and appeared to be the main point of the course.

Although I have to admit someone on our course whose husband went on a different course did find there was not much room for debate on his course.

Nick,

You'll note that i said that most are happy to engage in the debate. I just worry that because as a nation we are becoming more secular, the minority that have strong religious views are shouting louder.

A good example of this is faith schools (which I fundamentally disagree with). Under Tony Blair these grew at an astounding rate. Why do we need faith schools? The job of a school is to educate, not indoctrinate.
It is the job of a church to offer religious education, not a school. Do you remember Sunday School - I do. This was and should be the vehicle for those who choose to be educated in a particular religion, or in many religions should they be multitheistic.

The (fabled) separation of church and state took a pounding when Blair was in power, and his entry into the catholic church is disgusting in the light of the things that he did and is doing in the name of Great Britain.

I appreciate that you are a man of faith, so many of my comments won't chime with your viewpoint, but in light of some of the diatribe on the forum lately, I find it very refreshing that you and I can discuss these issues without needing a TON OF CAPITAL LETTERS, or to say that you are "a fucking hypocrite" (sic) or a "miserable manipulative cunt of an old man" (sic). I like the fact that we are totally different people that can actually have respect for one another.

Now, where did I put that sniper rifle

Graham.

 

[Nick]

Nick,


I appreciate that you are a man of faith, so many of my comments won't chime with your viewpoint, but in light of some of the diatribe on the forum lately, I find it very refreshing that you and I can discuss these issues without needing a TON OF CAPITAL LETTERS, or to say that you are "a fucking hypocrite" (sic) or a "miserable manipulative cunt of an old man" (sic). I like the fact that we are totally different people that can actually have respect for one another.



Graham.

Graham

Even though I resemble those remarks I agree totally, my wife spends all day trying to teach 6 year olds the importance of respect for others, I think we sometimes all need that lesson again.

 

[Mark Worthington]

Sorry I missed most of this one. Too bad that the thread drifted into areas of politics, religion and abortion, because they really don't have anything to do with the pros and cons of guns. For that matter, the right to keep and bear arms is something that is often agreed upon by both liberals and conservatives

On topic, the main pro of guns is that they can be used to kill or destroy things that need to be killed or destroyed. The main con against guns is that they can be used to kill or destroy things that should not be destroyed. Therefore, the appropriate use of guns requires personal responsibility and conformance to the rule of law on the part of the gun owner, and an acceptance of the concept of personal responsibility along with just laws on the part of society.

In my opinion, as a gun owner who possesses a CCW and carries regularly, the overwhelming majority of lawful gun owners accept the personal responsibility and have no problem with laws that keep guns from unstable persons or criminals. Hopolophobes, on the other hand, tend to be statists who shun personal responsibility and who are constantly pushing to regulate firearm ownership in a manner that is perceived to be unjust by gun owners. And the beat goes on.

The bottom line is that if you don't like guns you shouldn't own them, but the second amendment explicitly states that you have no business telling me, as a lawful gun owner, what firearms I can or can't own or carry. Like Al, I have never unholstered my handgun in anger and pray that I never will. However, if I am faced with a grave and imminent threat to my life or the safety my loved ones I will not hesitate to use deadly force if I believe it is necessary to do so.

 

[domtoni]

+1 Mark.

 

[Jack]

Those with an irrational fear of firearms here in the USA have a choice not to use or carry them! I choose to, period. Mark's comments are right on!

 

[Nick]

Those with an irrational fear of firearms here in the USA have a choice not to use or carry them! I choose to, period. Mark's comments are right on!

Molleur,


I don't have an irrational fear of the firearms but I do have a rational fear that some citizens such as Derrick Bird can get hold of them legitimately. If you want to have guns that is fair enough but you should also have adequate checks including checks about possible mental health issues.

The Cumbria shootings were a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in the county of Cumbria, North West England, United Kingdom

Guardian,co,uk 3 June 2010

Despite some of the world's toughest firearms legislation, a two-tier system means shotguns are treated with a 'light touch'

The home secretary's disclosure that the two weapons Derrick Bird used in the shootings were covered by a shotgun certificate he had since 1995 and a firearms license he obtained in 2007 raises questions about the effectiveness of UK gun laws.

For example, the process Bird needed to go through to get a firearms certificate for the .22 high-calibre rifle – granted for "shooting vermin and recreational target practice" – included providing the names and addresses of two referees, but did not necessarily include a check with his doctor on his mental health background

 

[Jack]

Nick,
I do believe in some regulation. Just to be clear, a mental health checks and criminal background checks are reasonable. Most states (not all) routinely perform as a minimum, criminal background checks for customers purchasing handguns. A waiting period to claim a long gun is also required in most states. I have a long military background and posess a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I will ALWAYS attempt to find a way out of a confrontation; to the extent of running away if possible. Only if my life (or family) is threatened with no other possibility of defusing the situation, would I EVER draw and fire my weapon at another person.
Responsible persons buy guns. Criminals steal them!