-
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.
- Thread starter bobhikes
- Start date
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Nope, still ragin'. Poor fella. Seriously, if you're going to engage in a debate, present a rational, substantiated argument rather than silly knee-jerk reactions and ad homs.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
The 2nd Amendment is often equated with guns. But that's absurd. It says, ". . .the right of the people to own and carry arms. . ." It doesn't say, ". . .the right of the people to own and carry firearms. . ." I am all for guns, but I argue this with gun rights people. There are some of us who can't own a firearm because of a conviction, I'm one of them. There are others who can't because of mental illness, mental retardation or alcoholism and drug addiction, and none of that is their fault. But the Constitution is very clear, all these people, including felons, have the right to own and carry arms. That could mean knives, mace, a stun gun or a bully club or whatever. I don't interpret it to mean that we have a right to firearms, because many don't have that right through no fault of their own and others because of a conviction. There are no gun rights. Owning firearms is a privilege like having a driver's license. With that being said, yeah, I am for arming everyone on earth over 12 years old, just not necessarily firearms.
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Why does no one, in such an appropriate a thread, discuss the real issue which is the revolting culture of intellectually rancid gun toting?
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Seems to be always conveniently and deliberately swept under the rug.
"Defense with a firearm is associated with fewer completed robberies and less injury. Two forms of self-defense, namely using force without a weapon and trying to get help or attract attention, are associated with higher injury rates than taking no self-protective action.
The results suggest interesting associations: victims who use guns defensively are less likely to be harmed than those using other forms of self-protection."
Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Fire. (2005). Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Academies Press.
"The results of the above analyses confirm and reinforce the basic findings of the original Lott and Mustard study. Passage of a right-to-carry concealed weapons law tends to reduce violent crime."
Moody, C. E. (2001). Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(S2), 799-813.
"the results of the present study indicate that states with more restrictive CCW laws had gun-related murder rates that were 10% higher. In addition, the Federal assault weapons ban is significant and positive, indicating that murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal ban was in effect."
Gius, M. (2014). An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates. Applied economics letters, 21(4), 265-267.
"To summarize, the only prior research that supports the hypothesis that higher gun ownership rates cause higher crime rates is research that makes at least one, and usually all of, the three fundamentalmethodological errors identified here. Conversely, research that avoids or minimizes these flaws consistently finds no support for the hypothesis."
Kleck, G. (2015). The impact of gun ownership rates on crime rates: A methodological review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 40-48.
"After controlling for an array of factors, including trends before and after the law went into effect, I show that states that enact concealed carry laws are less likely to have a felonious police death and more likely to have lower rates of felonious police deaths after the law is passed...
Furthermore, those who believe allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons will endanger the lives of law enforcement officials do not even have anecdotal evidence to support their position."
Mustard, D. B. (2001). The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths*. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(S2), 635-657.
"Our evidence implies that concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far analyzed by economists, providing a higher return than increased law enforcement or incarceration, other private security devices, or social programs like early educational intervention."
Lott, Jr, J. R., & Mustard, D. B. (1997). Crime, deterrence, and right‐to‐carry concealed handguns. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1-68.
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Cite all the bull**** you want; you keep a gun in your home = you and your family are more likely to be killed by a gun.
"positions on gun control continue to be driven by the same cultural conflicts and antipathies that have divided the nation for decades. Those who have faith that police can protect them from criminals support gun control; conversely, those who believe that they cannot rely on the police put their faith in the gun, and oppose the stronger forms of gun control that might disarm them. Further, those who despise the “gun culture” as violent, racist, and backward support handgun bans, while those who reject such stereotypes oppose them"
Kleck, G., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2009). Why do people support gun control?: Alternative explanations of support for handgun bans. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5), 496-504.
What a logical, rational, well-supported argument. I'm also more likely to die in a car accident. Should I stay off of roads? Turns out stairs and ladders are more dangerous too. Better to live as a hermit in a 1-story house and move if the roof requires repairs.
Rampant mental illness and lack of access to mental healthcare and programs not having enough funding in the first place, and society not taking mental illness seriously along with there being stigmas against it and the pervasive notion that it's something you can just "snap out of" and that if you can't, you're "weak". Many of the mass shooters have backgrounds full of abuse and trauma, and those are issues that aren't really focused on much in society, either. People are also oblivious to others much of the time. Before attacks, they often drop hints or even openly announce their plans to those close to them. There's usually plenty of warning signs. People don't tend to just "snap". There's a buildup and planning involved. But people just don't pay attention or take it seriously.
(There's generally three types of mass shooters, especially school shooters: those with a history of trauma, those who are psychotic and those who are psychopathic. All can be identified beforehand if people actually pay attention.)
So we have an apathetic society that is quite ignorant about mental health issues and also has easy access to guns. It's not that hard to figure out why it happens. It would be nice if we cared about each other more, for a start.
Last edited:
Clinically, they are related to what (in the DSM) is relegated to a cultural expression of mental illness that originates in Malaysia and is the basis of the term "running amok" in which an individual would commit suicide by stabbing as many people as possible (typically with a dagger called a kris) before being killed by law enforcement whilst the crowd yelled "amok! amok!". From the DSM:
"A dissociative episode characterized by a period of brooding followed by an outburst of violent, aggressive, or homicidal behavior directed at people and objects. The episode tends to be precipitated by a perceived slight or insult and seems to be prevalent only among males. The episode is often accompanied by persecutory ideas, automatism, amnesia, exhaustion, and a return to premorbid state following the episode. Some instances of amok may occur during a brief psychotic episode or constitute the onset or an exacerbation of a chronic psychotic process. The original reports that used this term were from Malaysia. A similar behavior pattern is found in Laos, Philippines, Polynesia, (cafard or cathard), Papua New Guinea, and Puerto Rico (mal de pelea), and among the Navajo (iich'aa)."
Seems rather simplistic. Some of us don't have particular faith in criminals, but realize that arming the populace means arming the criminals, too.
It also ignores the fact that the story of gun death is mostly suicide.
Shad
Veteran Member
This is law in Canada. To not have training as a requirement is shortsighted.I support the right to own firearms but I believe use and safety training should be a requirement.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I agree....and here the training is dealt before the carry license is granted
but owner ship is allowed by law
Shad
Veteran Member
The difference is at times at the state level does not require training whereas in Canada this is a federal law. At the province level only addition requirements can be added but not policy that voids federal.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
noted.....in a neighboring state you can carry anywhere you like with no more than a scrap paper
having permission and signature from the local sheriff
in my state there is a lot more restriction aimed at 'you may carry.....but not effectively'
Yes... if your objective in driving around is to make yourself safer.
If you have some other reason for driving, then you'll have to balance your priorities.
esmith
Veteran Member
And what does the above have to do with the subject of the OP????