Well, we usually have a very vocal board, wonder why no one has statred on...

[Gaelic]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Well said, Dramnek! It is amazing how people can be so blind to reality when they are defending a 'right'. But we all do it! If we are determined not to 'see' something, nothing will convince us! We will never convince the gun lobby that they are wrong, and they will likewise never convince us that their stance is other than misguided. Common sense, sadly, does not enter into the equation.

Throughout history, people who were not allowed to defend themselves were ultimately enslaved or beaten down in one way or another. It is the first step in domination of a group of people, and it is an easy one. "Oh gee, for the common good, lets take away your only means of self defense." Let's not forget that Hitler was elected to his position, by the people of Germany, because his insanity was not apparent to the electorate or the rest of the world. His first step was to disarm the people. Neither I, nor the over 75% of Americans who favor gun ownership, will allow that to happen here.

Secondly, you hear every day about unarmed people who are victimized by others, armed or unarmed. I, and others like me, have simply elected not to be a victim.

Finally, the idea that simply removing legal guns from the picture is naive and a rather "rose-colored glasses" view of the world. Lawful gun owners are not the perpetrators of crimes. It is the criminals who obtain them through illegal means who will continue to do the same, whether they are legal or not. This is borne out by study after study, and even by the experiences of the two police detectives who live next door to me. It is a "misguided view" that disarming law abiding people will improve the situation. In fact, the areas in the US where legal guns are more readily available have MUCH lower crime rates than those where it is very difficult to get and maintain a weapon (take Orange County, CA compared to Los Angeles County, CA for example).



------------------
Gaelic

In britain guns have been removed from the street, and what that means is that there are less than 5000 shootings in britan a year. The toll of shootings in new york alone every year is more than triple that.also the world is very differnent now,
i cannot forsee a dictator ariseing in america. Even if one did arise what would you do? its training, co-ordination and tactics that make armies effective not haveing a gun so there would be no way of resisting a dictator by violent means.

it does not matter if the person is law abideing, many deaths are the results of accidents with guns by law abideing people. guns are not the only method of self defense, the best method is a strong well funded police force and also makeing drugs legal on prescription. However due to enormus tax cuts and a bloated militry budget the american goverment cannot spend more, Much higher income taxes for the rich and gettign rid of the "war on drugs" and dis-armament would solve some problems.

and if you look at the cause for the commen good, it is good to have less murders beacuse it means society will be more productive etc, so remove guns and you will make it much harder to kill people therfore less murders. Guns also are not good for soceity. Guns do not defend your rights, they take other peoples, by shooting someone even defending your home or whatever you take their right to life.

aslo if you elect not to be the victim and shoot someone, thats makes them a victim, this justs transfers suffering when people could get rid of their weapons to eliminate some of this suffering.

also let us say guns were banned in the USA under the current president(not gonna happern tho cos of money behind NRA an american politics is ALL about the money) would you really take to the streets with a gun to defend your right to own it,woud you shoot people who tried to take it away?



[This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 06-16-2001).]

[Gaelic]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: In britain guns have been removed from the street, and what that means is that there are less than 5000 shootings in britan a year. The toll of shootings in new york alone every year is more than triple that.also the world is very differnent now, i cannot forsee a dictator ariseing in america. Even if one did arise what would you do? its training, co-ordination and tactics that make armies effective not haveing a gun so there would be no way of resisting a dictator by violent means. it does not matter if the person is law abideing, many deaths are the results of accidents with guns by law abideing people. guns are not the only method of self defense, the best method is a strong well funded police force and also makeing drugs legal on prescription. However due to enormus tax cuts and a bloated militry budget the american goverment cannot spend more, Much higher income taxes for the rich and gettign rid of the "war on drugs" and dis-armament would solve some problems. and if you look at the cause for the commen good, it is good to have less murders beacuse it means society will be more productive etc, so remove guns and you will make it much harder to kill people therfore less murders. Guns also are not good for soceity. Guns do not defend your rights, they take other peoples, by shooting someone even defending your home or whatever you take their right to life. aslo if you elect not to be the victim and shoot someone, thats makes them a victim, this justs transfers suffering when people could get rid of their weapons to eliminate some of this suffering. also let us say guns were banned in the USA under the current president(not gonna happern tho cos of money behind NRA an american politics is ALL about the money) would you really take to the streets with a gun to defend your right to own it,woud you shoot people who tried to take it away? [This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 06-16-2001).]

It won't happen because the vast majority here support gun ownership. In answer to your question, yes.



------------------
Gaelic

so if a policeman who had a wife and 2 children asked politily for you give your gun to him or be arrested you would shoot him even if he had nothing to do with a law banning guns and was an innocent his only "crime" trying to divest you of an instruemnt of death?, i find that disturbing and disapionting that a normal person could even consider shooting anyone like that.


also even if the vast majority of people in the us supported gun ownership, if they were told of the problems that could be solved by massive gun control on a level and fair debate rhater than the stilited and illogical ones we recive from the NRA would they really support the owning of guns. It all depends on how you look at the situation, if you appraoch it with "their trying to take away our liberty" idea youll be oppoesed but if you look at it in a logical and humanitarian way you may see how much good will be done by banning many guns and bringing the rest under heavily restreictive laws. its depends much on how the question is put. If it was do you support gun ownership some people may say yes, but if it was do you want to enact controls over weapons that are a cause of a chronically high murder rate the answer would be almost unanamiously yes.

[Wulfere]

We already have thousands of gun laws on the books. Laws and restrictions mean nothing to criminals. GB has gotten rid of handguns...ok fine. People still get them and use them. You say crimminals use them on each other there...fine.
Less than 5000 shooting a year. Swell. The studies here quote ALL gun related injuries and lump them under one heading. They don't split them up into intentional, accidental, and Rapantly Stupid or crimminal. If you want a study to prove yur point choose one that does. Since there are so many with their own agendas.
.
Gaelic... I am behind you. But you might as well forget about trying to get your point across. They don't want to hear. I have had this conversation before with friends from other lands too many times. They don't want to "get it". They want to talk about humanitarian goals. Guess what, crimminals don't give a damn about your humanity. They want to fulfill their desire. You are in the way. The only evil ever in their eyes is not getting what they want.
To quote a comic who had a show on HBO for awhile...Dennis Miller
" There are some just plain Evil MotherF*****s out there! The only thing we can do as a society to protect ourselves is to drop a little chlorine into the gene pool and put a bullet between their eyes."
The man is a screaming liberal if there ever was one.
But he was right, I could never say he didn't call em like he saw them.
But this is a US thing and they don't want to understand.

------------------

[Gaelic]

I think you are right, Wulfere. I view my right as a lawful citizen to own a gun at the same level as my right to free speech. I would venture to say that most people would fight to keep that right.

As for seeing the "logical approach," I think the logical approach is to promote a society based on personal responsibility. If someone does not become a millionaire, it is not because of their parents. If someone can't pass a math test, it isn't because of the test. If someone, commits a crime, it isn't because of society. If someone commits a murder, it isn't because of the tool he used to do the job. We have lost the sense of personal responsibility in our society, and that more than anything else will bring its downfall.



------------------
Gaelic

[Fljotsdale]

Gaelic, Wolfere, 'tisn't a matter of not wanting to understand! Speaking for myself alone, I have some vague glimmering of how you feel. But it IS only vague, and it is so tempered by cold common sense that I truly marvel that so many Americans can be so hide-bound by tradition and the propaganda of gun manufacturers.
Look, I like both you guys, so don't take me wrong. I know I am not going to convince you! But truly, truly, guys, you are SO WRONG! No hard feelings, hey?
I'm gonna drop out of this discussion now, 'cos we are both on a loser!

------------------

[Gaelic]

Hehe! Thanks Fljotsdale. The gun manufacturers and lobbyists have zero effect on my opinion. Mine is based on research and personal decision-making. Something people often forget is that lobbys like the NRA are not magical entities that draw their power from magic. They are organizations made up of free men and women who hold a common belief. They donate their money through membership dues, etc, so that their voice may be heard. Anti-gun organizations do the same. They are not heard as much because they don't have as many members. NRA messages are not propaganda. They are representative of the views of its members.



------------------
Gaelic

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Nah! Don't agree at all! Yes, your points are valid, in so far as they go. The OT was for the Jews, the NT was for all mankind who wanted it. Laws differ for different situations/people. Seems fine until you think about it. But scripture says 'god does not change' and that there are 'two unchangeable things, his word and his law'. The two statements quoted above - eye for eye/turn the other cheek - are diametrically opposed, regardless of circumstances, and are totally at odds with god being 'unchanging'. Take a look at the attitudes in the OT. Compare with attitudes in the Book of Revelation. You will see the same god. Take a look at the 4 gospels and you will see a person who is SO unlike the OT/Revelation god it is no wonder the Jewish reliious heirachy hated him! Jesus was a nice bloke. God was not. Their attitudes opposing are clarified by the eye for eye/turn the other cheek statements. IMHO! Oh, and actually the NT no more speaks of man's future in heaven than the OT does. SOME were to go to heaven, MOST were to 'inherit the earth and dwell forever upon it'

Fjlotsdale, you aren't reading my post. "Grace" is not "Law" the new testament doesn't change Gods law, it allows people - through Jesus - to be removed from it and it's consequences. That is the beauty of it. For all intents and purposes the Law still stands - just ask a Jew - but a Christian is not beholdant to it.

We've discussed this before, but since you brought it up:
Again, when I read the OT I find a merciful, tolerant and extremely patient God who bends over backwards for a bunch of very difficult people. The Jewish heirachy of Jesus day did not hate God. As a matter of fact they were observing all the rituals and laws their descendants habitually abandoned. (It seems they learned their lessons in exile.) Even Jewish scholars will point to the fact that Judaism didn't really need reforming at the time. The religious leaders Jesus decried were the hypocritical, judgemental ones. He befriended at least two (documented).

But this is beside the point. You are giving the two statements equal value despite my pointing out that one was a recommended guide for the Jewish legal system, and the other an indication of an attitude necessary to follow Jesus and be removed from "Gods Law". You must understand that a Christian doesn't need to read Leviticus and then sacrifice such and such, or not eat pork, or not do any work on the sabbath (Ministers would be out of a job...)

Fjlotsdale, your background was Jehv Witness was it not? I said it before and I'll say it again, the differences between JWs and Christianity are so profound that the Christian churches do not consider Jehovahs Witnesses "Christian". The way you are posting highlights this as "Grace" is an early concept in a Christians walk, and fundamental to the notion of "Salvation".

The Avatar example Sazerac brought up is interesting, but doesn't really apply, as the old testament makes hundreds? of references to the messiah, prophecies which Jesus fulfilled. The entire thrust of the old testament - full of themes of fall and redemtion - is completed by the new. It is not a case of someone changing their mind or redirecting traffic, it is about fulfilling expectations and realising projected changes.

Hypothesise for a moment that you are building a house. While the house is being built you are living in a caravan. You have certain rituals you perform every night such as putting out the campfire and unfolding the sofabed. You speak of all you will do when you move into the new house. When you do move in, there is no campfire to put out, and a bed that stays up all the time, so those rituals are unecessary.

Jesus is the house Fjlotsdale.

As I said, I see no contradiction. That was then in the caravan, this is now, in the new house.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 06-16-2001).]

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Wulfere: But this is a US thing and they don't want to understand.

Not that we don't want to understand - I guess we can't. I live in Sydney, and gun laws were tightened here considerably when someone named Martin Bryant went on a rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania and killed 35 people with an automatic rifle. As a consequence to that the government required that ALL automatics and semi-automatics be turned in to be destroyed, and people were paid at well above market value. Since then the no. of deaths due to shootings and crimes involving guns have dropped substantially.

So it's not a case of not wanting to understand. I grew up in LA where I used to carry a butterfly knife to school because I didn't want to get mugged. Since moving here, I've never had to worry about that.

I guess it's just different worlds. BTW, the above post is not meant to be critical of the US, so don't take it as such.


------------------