• 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!

Gun Control

The "good guys with guns" argument implies gun control in terms of restricting who gets a gun and required training and registration.

No, it does not imply that. Because restrictions makes alot of people not wanna bother going through the headach.

Spreading guns around willy nilly and hoping more good guys get them doesn't fill me with confidence.

Fills me with alot of confidence. I have no confidence in your policy idea push.

Also, even if good guys have guns, this doesn't mean they are ready to use them from a safety perspective or are mentally ready to fire on a human.

If you had a gun and some gang of thugs came after your spouse to rob her, would you freez up and not shoot them?

Please answer that question to.

Unfortunately, humans tend to be reactive. Having guns around increases the likelihood of someone losing their cool and randomly shooting people. This recently happened close by me at a--you guessed it!--Walmart. (What is it about Walmarts and guns?)

Yea, and its already been documented that good guys do stop bad guys. Such a case was also at a walmart.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Ya, more guns logically means more gun deaths.

But, statistics show, more guns means less overal crime.

Its a trade off. What kind of a society you want? More guns, with more gun deaths or less overal crime?

And its not a insecure issue, its a reality issue.

Perhaps you could have as much crime without all the guns? And the crime rate might be related to your increasing prison population rather than any gun ownership.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Some crime, not so much. Gun crimes, say.
Drive-by shootings would be harder to do!

Any evidence that gun ownership has a marked effect on deterring any crimes overall - compared with what happens in other countries? The USA seems to be paying a high price in suicides, accidents, and rage killings for their gun ownership.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Any evidence that gun ownership has a marked effect on deterring any crimes overall - compared with what happens in other countries? The USA seems to be paying a high price in suicides, accidents, and rage killings for their gun ownership.

Then too there is vandalism and destruction of wildlife.

I suppose cars are by far the worst at wildlife destruction.

Adding up all the costs and benefits, regarding cars
or guns is probably somewhere out past merely
impossible.

Honestly, I wish both would find a graceful way to
go away.

I would go for that even if I knew that I personally
would be less safe (if I had a gun and had to get it
destroyed) My feelings in the matter are not
suitable for wagging the dog.

Meanwhile all the slogans, virtue signaling and
dueling websites are giving me a headache.
And I dont think anyone actually knows what
a good idea is, in this.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
No, it does not imply that. Because restrictions makes alot of people not wanna bother going through the headach.

Then doesn't that suggest they aren't as invested in gun ownership? ;-)

But, it does imply it. It implies that there are people capable of handling an engagement with firearms safely and effectively which requires training, and they have been screened and tested to make sure they are going to use firearms in a legal manner (hence being good instead of bad).

Fills me with alot of confidence. I have no confidence in your policy idea push.

Knowing not only how many more bad guys will have guns but that also the good guys that are out there may not be able to handle the weapon responsibly and may even snap or lose their cool and become instant bad guys is not something that fills me with confidence.

If you had a gun and some gang of thugs came after your spouse to rob her, would you freez up and not shoot them?

Please answer that question to.

If there were no other choice, likely not. I would hesitate, most likely.

I am trained in Crisis Intervention and have practiced martial arts from a self-defense perspective my whole life, so likely I would try non-lethal interventions where I could.

I would have to deal with the ramifications of this decision, though. The psychological impact of killing a human would deter me as much as possible.

Yea, and its already been documented that good guys do stop bad guys. Such a case was also at a walmart.

They do sometimes. Would not have helped in this case: Police charge Auburn man with murder in Walmart shooting
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Then doesn't that suggest they aren't as invested in gun ownership? ;-)

No, it suggests they believe in freedom, less headaches. Atleast thats how some would look at it.

But, it does imply it. It implies that there are people capable of handling an engagement with firearms safely and effectively which requires training, and they have been screened and tested to make sure they are going to use firearms in a legal manner (hence being good instead of bad).

You can get training without it being a law. You can be good without a screening. And you can be bad WITH A SCREENING.

Knowing not only how many more bad guys will have guns but that also the good guys that are out there may not be able to handle the weapon responsibly and may even snap or lose their cool and become instant bad guys is not something that fills me with confidence.

Some people can snap, it dont mean there gonna shoot someone. People still have a brain. Except those on here who disagree with me, lol.

If there were no other choice, likely not. I would hesitate, most likely.

If youd hesitate, then shame on you. Your wife is about to get gang mugged and youd hesitate to use that gun? Id shoot them all and then twice over. And those left in agony, id take my shoe and press on there wounds. Then spit on them.

I am trained in Crisis Intervention and have practiced martial arts from a self-defense perspective my whole life, so likely I would try non-lethal interventions where I could.

Thats good, no shame on you there then.

I would have to deal with the ramifications of this decision, though. The psychological impact of killing a human would deter me as much as possible.

Why? There thugs, ready to attack your wife and steel her perse. Id feel no ramifications only anger.

They do sometimes. Would not have helped in this case: Police charge Auburn man with murder in Walmart shooting

Sometimes it works, sometimes it dont. But if no one has them, then it will never work.
 
Perhaps you could have as much crime without all the guns? And the crime rate might be related to your increasing prison population rather than any gun ownership.

Well, its logical. More civilians with guns stop more criminsls. Crime goes down.

Likewise, more police employed, crime also goes down.

Either way, whether more guns are in the form of police or civilians reveals less overal crime.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
If youd hesitate, then shame on you. Your wife is about to get gang mugged and youd hesitate to use that gun? Id shoot them all and then twice over. And those left in agony, id take my shoe and press on there wounds. Then spit on them.
Congratulations - you're now a criminal; exactly the kind of person you don't want to have a gun.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
It varies based on definition used. Yes 2a is costly. The alternatives can be much worse. The problem is cultural not merely guns.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/7#p2000ba499970102001

I'd like to see comparisons with other countries, if this is actually possible given all the cultural and historical differences. And the pressure to own a weapon might be more related to the number of weapons out there anyway. In a society without so many guns, like the UK, we seem to have an issue at the next level down, with knives. And most of us have perhaps dozens of knives in our houses.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Well, its logical. More civilians with guns stop more criminals. Crime goes down.

Likewise, more police employed, crime also goes down.

Either way, whether more guns are in the form of police or civilians reveals less overal crime.

It might be logical but is it factual?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Then too there is vandalism and destruction of wildlife.

I suppose cars are by far the worst at wildlife destruction.

Adding up all the costs and benefits, regarding cars
or guns is probably somewhere out past merely
impossible.

Honestly, I wish both would find a graceful way to
go away.

I would go for that even if I knew that I personally
would be less safe (if I had a gun and had to get it
destroyed) My feelings in the matter are not
suitable for wagging the dog.

Meanwhile all the slogans, virtue signaling and
dueling websites are giving me a headache.
And I dont think anyone actually knows what
a good idea is, in this.

Guns are very seductive, having owned an air pistol and having fired a proper gun once, such that they often give one a greater sense of power than actually exists. As in - how many people would actually be prepared to kill another based on some sketchy belief or knowledge concerning another's intent. Lower down the scale of weaponry this probably exists far less. But, many countries seem to exist reasonably well without so many guns and without the problems they bring. A mainly unique problem for the USA as I see it, and based on the constitution, culture, and history.
 
Top