• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why arming everyone with guns is not a good Idea.

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
nuff said?....not yet.

I'm talking real life stories

then there's he guy getting shot in his front yard....my small town
maybe he got caught by surprise....
but he did not return fire
no gun

too bad
Reread my last post as I added on.

Bye.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
then there's all those years of martial arts training.....all the while the instructor makes no effort for defense against a gun
stats seem to favor the guy holding the gun.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
then there's all those years of martial arts training.....all the while the instructor makes no effort for defense against a gun
stats seem to favor the guy holding the gun.
It seems a problem that so much of "martial arts" is sports oriented.
Effective use of guns, knives & improvised weapons are just as "martial", if not more so.
Nikoli Hel knows what I'm talk'n about.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, but I have to get this last item in:

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.-- http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

But then, why would anyone believe in what an Oxford University study might show? :rolleyes:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Oh, but I have to get this last item in:

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.-- http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

But then, why would anyone believe in what an Oxford University study might show? :rolleyes:
Because if a study shows that safe storage has no value, this study is booOOOoooOOOoooOOooooOoooooOOoogus!
And then there's the issue of suicide....
I consider this the right of the individual, & if not accomplished by gun, then it may be by other means.
So this component of risk analysis is dubious at best.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
It seems a problem that so much of "martial arts" is sports oriented.
Effective use of guns, knives & improvised weapons are just as "martial", if not more so.
Nikoli Hel knows what I'm talk'n about.
I didn't study a sport/trophy art
it was the real thing......I go home and you go to the hospital
you will need a surgeon to fix what I did
the hospital will call the cops, who will then show up at my door for the arrest.
the judge will need to be assured I performed in defense.

Sensei refrained 'gun control' techniques
most people have enough reflex to pull the trigger if you jump at them

I have seen only one demo of a grab that looked like it would work
but that guy was a large special forces soldier and he was QUICK!
.4secs to take your gun and point at you!
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
As someone who is (as I stated earlier) favoring of gun control, I don't see how this position ever wins in the current political climate. I think some sort of repeal of the 2nd amendment would be repealed later on far quicker than repeal of the 18th amendment (regarding prohibition on alcohol).

The idea of 'controlling gun manufacturing and buying' is already well underway. But visibly, those who move toward stricter control as their platform, are actually making gun right advocates think it is time to get even more guns, as the last 8 years in the U.S. has clearly shown.

So, then we look to other correlations with gun violence (i.e. makeup of the person) and run with that for awhile. But, I think it is fairly clear that there is spiritual/philosophical aspect to the ongoing debate that is touched upon, but is really the aspect that those who favor control must answer to. That aspect comes in many forms. Essentially, it comes down to a right of self defense. And what tool is best, or adequate, for self defense. The more political way of stating the aspect is understanding that if certain guns are outlawed, then suddenly society has made otherwise responsible citizens into outlaws, with a stroke of a pen. And given the nature of self preservation, I doubt all people will turn in their guns. In fact, if bad people exist, they are very likely to keep or seek to obtain such items, realizing it gives them a clear advantage. How would this be known? Because the government clearly operates under the reality that to enforce the law and to win wars, guns are very necessary. Are we going to send soldiers to a battlefield without guns? Nope, self preservation matters there as well.

There are clearly battles raging within our borders, none of which rise to the level of actual war. But who cares, the battles are clear enough to anyone that looks for all of 10 seconds. So, government would have to show the people that a battle can be won, and even better that many battles can be consistently won, without our side using weapons intended to kill/hurt opponents. Without that in play, and with the other firmly in play (the absolute, undeniable need to win battles via armed persons), it seems implausible to then disarm own citizens when clearly there are battles being waged every single day.

Fortunately, there is a spiritual response (answer) to this, but need not be expounded upon in this post/thread.
 

Brian Schuh

Well-Known Member
No one is saying to arm the people. It is against my religion to sell guns, as I might sell a gun to my enemy and not know it.

Same with nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. The UN discourages nations getting the bomb sometimes even with sanctions, but once a nation gets the bomb, the UN more or less accepts it

Unless you have a campaign to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it is a waste of time to complain or push gun control, because the supreme law of our land makes it clear that citizens have the right to own guns.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...hot-in-road-rage-attack/ar-BBrzPv7?li=BBnbfcL

A lot more of this. Line waiting rage, shopping rage and etc. people have no problem beating each other for little things. Let them have guns and they will end people for little things.
What would you say, then, about a country which requires about half (i.e., it's male) citizens, and allows many more, to not only train with, but keep in their homes their government issued assault rifles?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
What would you say, then, about a country which requires about half (i.e., it's male) citizens, and allows many more, to not only train with, but keep in their homes their government issued assault rifles?

I'm actually an advocate for gun training especially safety. I believe it should be a requirement for all gun owners. Does the government allow them to carry the assault rifles with them at all times. Certain states believe it a good idea for college students to carry arms on campus to protect themselves. Guns, Alcohol and drugs with young adult exuberance that's a good combination.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
No one is saying to arm the people. It is against my religion to sell guns, as I might sell a gun to my enemy and not know it.

Same with nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. The UN discourages nations getting the bomb sometimes even with sanctions, but once a nation gets the bomb, the UN more or less accepts it

Unless you have a campaign to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it is a waste of time to complain or push gun control, because the supreme law of our land makes it clear that citizens have the right to own guns.
your first line is odd....
so your religion is a screening process for the purchase of a firearm?
(do you own one?)

I thought the founding fathers were religious AND gun owners
 

Brian Schuh

Well-Known Member
your first line is odd....
so your religion is a screening process for the purchase of a firearm?
(do you own one?)

I thought the founding fathers were religious AND gun owners
I personally won't sell guns, but there are plenty of gun shops out there and it's your right to buy one. So go for it.
 

Brian Schuh

Well-Known Member
ok....but you refrain for religious reasons?
I would own a gun, I just won't sell guns. Take Nazi Germany for example, there were Jews shot with the very guns that they had sold. Maybe it's paranoia. And most people don't live in a nation where something like that would happen. It is neither here nor there. I've never owned a gun shop. It is simply hypothetical.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What would you say, then, about a country which requires about half (i.e., it's male) citizens, and allows many more, to not only train with, but keep in their homes their government issued assault rifles?
If you are referring to Sweden, once a male has completed their military service, they are given the option to keep their gun, and if they choose to keep it, it is sent in to be modified so that it only functions as a semi-auto gun.
 

Brian Schuh

Well-Known Member
If you are referring to Sweden, once a male has completed their military service, they are given the option to keep their gun, and if they choose to keep it, it is sent in to be modified so that it only functions as a semi-auto gun.
I read that in Sweden ammo isn't easy to get as some would think.
 

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
I'm actually an advocate for gun training especially safety. I believe it should be a requirement for all gun owners.


This. We require people to take driver's education, pass a written test and a road test before we let them on the road. Why not just require the same thing before owning a firearm? It seems completely reasonable.

I live in the city of Boston and I always heard it was notoriously difficult to get a license to carry. Then I decided to get mine, and damn I just can't see calling what I went through difficult at all. All I had to do was take a one day course, then go to the state police barracks and take a shooting test. It was like 10 shots from a certain distance single-action and then 10 double-action and you had to get some minimum score, which if you hit the target at all you pretty much got.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
This. We require people to take driver's education, pass a written test and a road test before we let them on the road. Why not just require the same thing before owning a firearm? It seems completely reasonable.

I live in the city of Boston and I always heard it was notoriously difficult to get a license to carry. Then I decided to get mine, and damn I just can't see calling what I went through difficult at all. All I had to do was take a one day course, then go to the state police barracks and take a shooting test. It was like 10 shots from a certain distance single-action and then 10 double-action and you had to get some minimum score, which if you hit the target at all you pretty much got.
Even growing up in the country where plenty of us learn how to shoot at an early age, I still support and advocate for gun training and safety before being allowed to buy and carry one. It would really only be a minor inconvenience for as, kinda like having to do the driving test (many of us country bumpkins also learn how to drive way before we're legally old enough to do so).
 
Top