-
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!
I WANT MY M-16.....or...'BREAKING NEWS AT LEAST FOUR SHOT IN NYC HOSPITAL'
- Thread starter MrMrdevincamus
- Start date
Godwins law already?
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Hogwash, check this out. Who commits mass shootings? - CNN.com Some people suffer from mental instability, it is just a fact. That is why there should be strict controls on who gets to own a gun.
Mate, I may be well wide of the mark, but I'm getting a picture of you as a right wing conservative type, sitting there fondly stroking your firearm, like a prepper waiting for the collapse of society so you can say to liberals like me "told you so!". I hope I'm wrong and you have a sense of humour, and that you can even laugh at yourself. I love comedy and think that so often there is truth in the humour...
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
In all reality, you can't predict what you will do in such a situation until you've been there. However, would be heroes tend to get killed and make things worse. There is a reason why during training for such things it is frequently repeated "do not be a hero." And not too mention you definitely do not want a gun in your hands when the police show up.
So you're going to boldly declare them wrong, but then just say "I bet it was this gun?" Just looking at them and hearing a report, unless there are confirmed reports of automatic fire and/or get a very clear look at the gun (which doesn't often happen) it does no good to bicker if it was the M-16 or AR-15 because it could have been either.
Feral pigs and wild boars are the same thing.
Not necessarily. This hypothetical "save the day shooter" may not have had a chance to even use a gun, could have wound up dead and doing nothing, could have made things worse for others, or could even have had a jumpy trigger finger and killed an innocent bystander. It could happen this hypothetical person could "save the day," but in reality we do not have adequate training and preparedness to rely on such a person. Self-defense isn't something that just happens and automatically presents itself with optimal conditions. Sometimes there is absolutely nothing even the most prepared and best trained can do.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
In all reality, liberals like you stand a much better chance of survival in such a situation because y'all aren't thinking a gun makes you Superman and you have to go in and be the hero. If I'm such a situation, my priorities are staying alive. If I have a chance to use a weapon on the perp, in a place like a hospital a gun would not be my first choice to retaliate with, given things like stray fire, oxygen tanks, and plenty of innocents who can do nothing to help themselves. But what's more likely to happen is I'm going to get down, and depending on circumstances either barricade myself in or escape.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Of course Wolfy, I am a Brit, I've never even held a real loaded firearm in my life. Why would I? Because I'm afraid a criminal might kill me? 50-60 people die from gunshot wounds in the UK per year. A fair average of people who die from accidents at work in the UK is at least 150 people annually. So do I go to work in a suit of armour, with a steel helmet? No, I don't live my life in fear and apprehension.
Allowing a 'liberal' regime when it comes to gun ownership is madness. America is living proof of that.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Liberal and Conservative approaches, both here are mad. And as far as I can tell, most American gun owners here, myself included, do not tend to support initiatives from either side. Though I suspect most wouldn't say this outright, I do suspect most would agree to the sentiment that the Reps/Cons want too many people to have guns want the Dems/Libs want to take away unfairly and unnecessarily. Neither goes on about things like mandatory safety and usage training, and stricter/better enforcement of the laws we already have, rather than making new laws.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
My counter would be this; nobody "needs" a gun unless it is a necessary part of their profession - soldier, police officer, farmer, game keeper, professional competitive marksman etc. Even then I think the person should be rigorously vetted on a regular basis to ensure they are of "sound body and mind" to hold a firearms licence.
Well that would be a start! I personally know (and you know) people in this world who are a tad unstable, moody, given to emotional tantrums right? Should such people be given easy access to firearms? The question is rhetorical, of course not.
The situation in America is doubly insane when you consider the ease of acquiring a semi-automatic or fully automatic gun. It is madness!
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
In my part, many people hunt. They also tend to own more rifles and shotguns than handguns. Most people I would say of course don't "need" a gun, but I do support people owning them, with reasonable restrictions and guidelines in place.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
We wont agree on this I'm sure but I'm pretty anti-hunt as well, except for people who live in remote areas and genuinely need to kill things in order to survive. If you can drive to a local store and pick up farmed meat then do that I say, what little wildlife is left on our planet needs a break! I understand there is a cultural chasm between what I (as a typical Brit) think about guns, and what Americans think about guns. If someone tells me they are "packing" I'm likely to smile and nod politely as I retreat to somewhere I can call the police to report a nutter! In America, guns are commonplace, your grandma might have one. Different worlds...
It is not just the unstable who can't be trusted with guns.
My brother in-law is a reasonable guy. Good old boy, NRA supporter, takes good care of the kids, excellent hunter...
He used to have an impressive gun collection. He kept several rifles, a couple of shotguns and pistols (a rifle he inherited from his grandpa) in a wooden rack he built himself. It was attached to the wall in his mobile home and secured with a really strong bicycle cable. He loved showing them off to anyone who had an interest.
He's very Christian and the whole family goes to church for a few hours every Sunday. One Sunday they came home to find the guns had all been stolen. Almost nothing but the guns, and the thieves didn't bother with the cable. They just jerked the whole rack off the wall. Police didn't think that they were in the place more than 5 minutes. By the time everyone got back from church the guns were probably in Kentucky.
They didn't even have to break in! He didn't think he needed to have a lock on the back door. Who would go in a place where they are heavily armed?
I don't think he should ever be allowed to have a gun again. He can't take care of them. But I don't say that out loud, for obvious reasons.
Tom
That definitely isn't true around here.
Here in Indiana, we've killed off all the natural predators. If we didn't hunt the rabbits and deer and squirrels and such the populations would explode. The critters would crowd out everything else and then eat the flora down to nubbins. Humans must hunt for the health of the biosphere, around here.
Tom
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
No problem with that Tom, I'd say it is sad that the "natural predators" are extinct but I live on an island where bears and wolves were once natural (and now extinct) so I cant claim a moral "high ground". I don't object to humane culling of 'pest' species, as long as the people doing it are trained and vetted.
How would a "professional competitive marksman" ever become professional if denied a gun as an amateur?
(No one ever paid me to compete back in the day.)
Anyway, our Constitution would get in the way of your plan.
Fully automatic guns are very difficult to obtain here.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Fair point, I've no problem with people using shooting ranges, it is when they want a gun for "personal security" or criminal activity that people tend to get killed.
When I come to power President Bottom Burp will just change your Constitution btw!
Glad to hear it, but I'd make a slight change to that - I'd make it impossible to obtain a fully automatic gun! Who the hell needs an automatic, or semi-automatic gun apart from soldiers or police officers? Preppers, criminals, and other assorted nut jobs would be my guess.
We lived thru Obama.Fair point, I've no problem with people using shooting ranges, it is when they want a gun for "personal security" or criminal activity that people tend to get killed.
When I come to power President Bottom Burp will just change your Constitution btw!
We're enduring Trump.
But you....must we suffer ever increasing horrors!?
Museum owners need them.
I once considered buying a Maxim machine gun for this purpose.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Personally, I'd rather people hunt than purchase factory farmed meats and meats from animals who were poisoned and made to suffer before they died. It's also important to understand that in America, city slickers and us country bumpkins view and look at guns differently. I know some hunters who have multiple rifles and shotguns, all locked up and secured, but they refuse to allow handguns in the house because those are made for entirely different purposes. I agree if someone says they are "packing" I'm likely to think they are not going to exercise adequate safety using such a slang term, and while I will agree American gun laws are not sufficient, the bulk majority of gun owners make it through life without incident, and plenty of enough of them do go the extra steps for safety's sake. Here in America, it's mostly the pistol toting gang bangers, people who have slipped through the cracks very far but still got a gun, and the police you have to worry about. Out here (and I say "out here" because it's pretty remote and isolated) I'd say that probably almost every house does have at least one gun, but allergies and high UV exposure are bigger problems.
Here in Indiana it is indeed a problem. We used to have wolves and bears and bobcats and plenty of natural predators, but if they haven't been completely driven away their numbers have dwindled to insignificance. Left to their own without intervention, it wouldn't take long at all for the rabbit and deer around here to totally decimate the vegetation in forests, housing editions, gardens and farms all alike. The only real predator animals left are coyotes and fox, and there just aren't enough of them to keep hordes of vegetarian deer and rabbits at bay.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
That is another controversy I'd like fix if I could wave a magic wand. Humane farming, where animals are given some adequate natural space in which to live is something I'd be prepared to pay extra for, I buy free range as it is. Farmed animals are fine if treated humanely, in the wild they may suffer from disease, infection or injury that in a farm environment would be treated by a vet. The trouble is people want cheap food, and they don't care to think too hard about the suffering of the animal they are eating, so we end up with some appalling conditions in farm factories.
Understood, and I've no problem with people who use guns because they live in remote areas, and need protection against predators. I'd want one myself if I lived in bear country for example.
Yep, seems a shame that we tend to drive out wildlife, the world would be a poorer place without wild animals. Just hope we never get to a place where the only place you can see a bear or a wolf is in a zoo or safari park.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
The quote in post #20 Is yours I don't think you purposefully made it look like my quote but it does. Here is a partial quote that clarifies it as yours;
>>>>>PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>Brickjectivity said; " I on the other hand was taught to turn the other cheek and forgive, but when I felt bullied in school for year after year I became bitter. This was a small Christian school part of my church. I didn't realize how bad it was at the time, and years after I had left the school I had thoughts about killing most of them.<<<<<<<<PARTIAL QUOTE<<<<
OK My friend (a term of endearment). Well I see you ID as a Christian on your profile, is that true? I think you have had some trauma in your early years. Many of us do and the same is true with me. Not serious trauma but enough that gave me a chip on my shoulder, which thank God has been corrected. You do know that when you stuff anger it very very often comes back years or even decades later as DEPRESSION and other MH problems. If I had not had my father and my religion to counsel me and teach me I am sure I would have been a grenade ready to explode back then. I know that because the stuffed anger had already began working on me.
We already have large secular schools, thousands of secular large schools. They are called public schools. These schools have WRONGLY separated religion and state. The establishment clause and other anti religious efforts were accomplished mainly by two atheist haters and an at the time liberal supreme court. Well you feel good secular large non personal schools will cure violence, like school shootings etc? I can not agree and feel the opposite would help. By that I mean we need smaller schools with more well trained teachers so students can receive ONE ON ONE or at least one in ten attention. One teacher for ten students, or do a study to discover the optimum or limit of teacher to student ratio. But this is getting long. Forums are not a good place to fully discuss ideas etc eh?
God bless our forum and our students that feel challenged to fit in etc, and please do not accept bullies. There is nothing in the bible that tells Christians to allow a beat down or to allow his family to he harmed. In fact its a sin not to protect our loved ones. Who said that? Mr Mr Devil said that! That's what my last name in my sc name translates as, ie Devil. It sounds anti Christian but its not, at least how I use it.
; {>
>>>>>PARTIAL QUOTE>>>>>Brickjectivity said; " I on the other hand was taught to turn the other cheek and forgive, but when I felt bullied in school for year after year I became bitter. This was a small Christian school part of my church. I didn't realize how bad it was at the time, and years after I had left the school I had thoughts about killing most of them.<<<<<<<<PARTIAL QUOTE<<<<
OK My friend (a term of endearment). Well I see you ID as a Christian on your profile, is that true? I think you have had some trauma in your early years. Many of us do and the same is true with me. Not serious trauma but enough that gave me a chip on my shoulder, which thank God has been corrected. You do know that when you stuff anger it very very often comes back years or even decades later as DEPRESSION and other MH problems. If I had not had my father and my religion to counsel me and teach me I am sure I would have been a grenade ready to explode back then. I know that because the stuffed anger had already began working on me.
We already have large secular schools, thousands of secular large schools. They are called public schools. These schools have WRONGLY separated religion and state. The establishment clause and other anti religious efforts were accomplished mainly by two atheist haters and an at the time liberal supreme court. Well you feel good secular large non personal schools will cure violence, like school shootings etc? I can not agree and feel the opposite would help. By that I mean we need smaller schools with more well trained teachers so students can receive ONE ON ONE or at least one in ten attention. One teacher for ten students, or do a study to discover the optimum or limit of teacher to student ratio. But this is getting long. Forums are not a good place to fully discuss ideas etc eh?
God bless our forum and our students that feel challenged to fit in etc, and please do not accept bullies. There is nothing in the bible that tells Christians to allow a beat down or to allow his family to he harmed. In fact its a sin not to protect our loved ones. Who said that? Mr Mr Devil said that! That's what my last name in my sc name translates as, ie Devil. It sounds anti Christian but its not, at least how I use it.
; {>