10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Yes, I bet Jesus was a veritable 4th Musketeer. I can still see Him twirling his moustache and demanding satisfaction from Pilot.

Are you under the impression that your joke has stripped the scripture of its meaning? Clearly Jesus is not advocating anything as flippant and worldly as dual for ones supposed honor, but still he bade the apostles take up swords for their protection. Not for his protection, because his appointed time had come, but for theirs, because they had a mission from him to fulfill, and the time of persecution was upon them. For insults to one’s honor, we are to turn the other cheek; for attacks against ones life, it is lawful to defend oneself; for attacks against the lives of those in our charge, we are obligated to defend them, even to the death, for no greater love hath man than this.

 

[YADA]

Myth" #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Somebody else already addressed this, but I’ll touch on it again:

Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0

WRONG …

Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians should be more then zero … Clackamas Town Center is one

Mass shooters like “Gun Free Zones” like the shooter that entered Clackamas Town Center in Portland Oregon … the Clackamas Town Center is signed as being a gun free zone

kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

And some other articles that indicate shootings have been stopped by armed citizens

davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/HeroesOutlawed.htm

sullivan-county.com/identity/hi_christy.htm

dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

 

[Robert_Sock]

What’s needed is well written gun facts, both pro and con, so people can judge whether they want to become a gun owner.

LOVE!

 

[Sarcelle]

Being against guns for private defense is not pacifist. Australia does not allow privately owned guns for defense but has a well armed police force and defense forces. What anti-privately owned guns means is that we are entrusting defense to the authorities highly trained in responsible gun use and subject to an ethical standard and oaths to bind their use of weapons.

Private owners are left to their own discretion to determine if a death shot is warranted from their subjective perspective. It means that everyone is in a permanent warlike frame of mind. Ready and armed for defense. That can be like a subtle disease. On an international scale that was shown by the state of Cold War between Russia and the US. Nothing good came of it except distrust and propagandising. ‘Not supporting privately owned guns equating with pacificism’ is the stuff of propagandising.

Hmmm, maybe in Australia the police may be able come to the aid of a would be victim in no time flat, but here in the US it takes time, enough time for a murder, robbery or rape to occur.

So if someone breaks onto your house intending you and your family harm and it takes the police 15 minutes to come to your aid, what are you going to do in the meantime?

 

[LilyM]

Are you under the impression that your joke has stripped the scripture of its meaning? Clearly Jesus is not advocating anything as flippant and worldly as dual for ones supposed honor, but still he bade the apostles take up swords for their protection. Not for his protection, because his appointed time had come, but for theirs, because they had a mission from him to fulfill, and the time of persecution was upon them. For insults to one’s honor, we are to turn the other cheek; for attacks against ones life, it is lawful to defend oneself; for attacks against the lives of those in our charge, we are obligated to defend them, even to the death, for no greater love hath man than this.

He told them to take up weapons for protection did He? Must explain all those bloody pitched battles the early Christians waged while protecting themselves against the Jewish and Roman authorities who were out to ruthlessly exterminate them - AND let’s not forget also exterminate the loved ones they were supposedly obligated to kill to protect.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Guns are too associated with violence of one sort or another; let us forget guns, and seek the peace and wisdom of Christ. If you’re worried about protecting yourself, pray to your Guardian Angel! Trust in God!

LOVE!

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Are you under the impression that your joke has stripped the scripture of its meaning? Clearly Jesus is not advocating anything as flippant and worldly as dual for ones supposed honor, but still he bade the apostles take up swords for their protection. Not for his protection, because his appointed time had come, but for theirs, because they had a mission from him to fulfill, and the time of persecution was upon them. For insults to one’s honor, we are to turn the other cheek; for attacks against ones life, it is lawful to defend oneself; for attacks against the lives of those in our charge, we are obligated to defend them, even to the death, for no greater love hath man than this.

Are you positing that if Christ were walking among us today, He and his followers would be carrying assault weapons?

 

[LongingSoul]

Hmmm, maybe in Australia the police may be able come to the aid of a would be victim in no time flat, but here in the US it takes time, enough time for a murder, robbery or rape to occur.

So if someone breaks onto your house intending you and your family harm and it takes the police 15 minutes to come to your aid, what are you going to do in the meantime?

Police response times are not the determining factor in banning private guns. It was more related to the poisonous mentality that gun ownership engendered. People with an axe to grind use guns to settle the score as was demonstrated by the mass shooting at Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996. More people are killed by private ownership than are killed under gun control. It’s that simple equation that some US gun proponents simply can’t handle. Nothing will be lost by trying gun control. Take my word.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

You do realize that guns are used for defensive purposes, right? The number of DGU (defensive gun uses) range up to 2.5 million times per year (according to Gary Kleck, Criminology professor at Florida State), and as low as 100,000 times per year (sorry, its been a while since I read the source). Either way, still outnumbers the number of murders due to guns.

Statistics show that the vast majority of people killed by guns are either killed by their own gun, or by someone they know. The way to defend yourself is to not own a gun and be mindful of the company you keep and the situations you put yourself in. When I first meet someone, I look for the warning signs. They can be found when words such as these come up in the conversation:

-“My Ex”

-Restraining order

-Custody battle

-Repossessed

-Bondsman

-Borrow money from In laws

-Warrant

-Court fees

-Visitation

People who actually kill people usually display some or all of these markers long before they actually kill anyone. And again, most people are killed by someone they know. It’s progressive behavior, like university for trouble. If you stay away from people for whom these words are part of their daily vocabulary, avoid dark alleys and convenience stores and buy a dead bolt, you’re probably all safe and sound. Trust me on this.

 

[Deus_tecum]

A spare tyre and drinking bottle are certainly not tools that could result in the death of a person.

If guns were really necessary for the defense of your life in the US they should be made available to us as tourists when we enter your country. The whole law is based on a justification that is discriminatory and unjust in itself. Guns are only available to citizens who qualify but restricted to the mentally ill, children, tourists and an array of other ‘weak’ candidates. It’s survival of the fittest and that’s not a good philosophy at all.

In most States and probably all of them, the armed citizen is legally allowed to defend others, not just him or herself. When that poor fellow was beaten almost to death in Detroit, it was an armed retired nurse who came to his aid, and saved his life. He would have been dead by the time the police arrived. By the way, the police chief of that city says the citizens who obey the law should be armed. As for your last line, I do not see how making police into the “fittest” and giving them the tools to survive, but denying that ability to common citizens is a good philosophy.

Now as to your first line, you are arguing against something I did not say. “If guns were really necessary for the defense of your life in the US”. I said it was better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. I do not know how and when it might become necessary or if it ever will for each person who chooses to carry a gun.

If you feel it is unfair that you are not given a gun as a tourist, please stay out of the US. Nobody makes you visit the US.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Statistics show that the vast majority of people killed by guns are either killed by their own gun, or by someone they know. The way to defend yourself is to not own a gun and be mindful of the company you keep and the situations you put yourself in. When I first meet someone, I look for the warning signs. They can be found when words such as these come up in the conversation:

-“My Ex”

-Restraining order

-Custody battle

-Repossessed

-Bondsman

-Borrow money from In laws

-Warrant

-Court fees

-Visitation

People who actually kill people usually display some or all of these markers long before they actually kill anyone. And again, most people are killed by someone they know. It’s progressive behavior, like university for trouble. If you stay away from people for whom these words are part of their daily vocabulary, avoid dark alleys and convenience stores and buy a dead bolt, you’re probably all safe and sound. Trust me on this.

Wow…judge people much, do you?

 

[maryjk]

Hmmm, maybe in Australia the police may be able come to the aid of a would be victim in no time flat, but here in the US it takes time, enough time for a murder, robbery or rape to occur.

So if someone breaks onto your house intending you and your family harm and it takes the police 15 minutes to come to your aid, what are you going to do in the meantime?

Die.

Be a victim of a horrendous crime.

Watch your family die. Watch your spouse be raped.

But that is okay, because the professionals are on their way.

 

[shockerfan]

Statistics show that the vast majority of people killed by guns are either killed by their own gun, or by someone they know. The way to defend yourself is to not own a gun and be mindful of the company you keep and the situations you put yourself in. When I first meet someone, I look for the warning signs. They can be found when words such as these come up in the conversation:

-“My Ex”

-Restraining order

-Custody battle

-Repossessed

-Bondsman

-Borrow money from In laws

-Warrant

-Court fees

-Visitation

People who actually kill people usually display some or all of these markers long before they actually kill anyone. And again, most people are killed by someone they know. It’s progressive behavior, like university for trouble. If you stay away from people for whom these words are part of their daily vocabulary, avoid dark alleys and convenience stores and buy a dead bolt, you’re probably all safe and sound. Trust me on this.

Its still up to the individual law abiding citizen to decide for themselves what is the best way to protect them and their family. I think your advice is reasonable and sound, but you totally discounted the facts that guns are used for defensive purposes (either by firing or simply brandishing) many more times than they are used in a murder.

 

[shockerfan]

… If you stay away from people for whom these words are part of their daily vocabulary, avoid dark alleys and convenience stores and buy a dead bolt, you’re probably all safe and sound. Trust me on this.

So for the woman in this story who defended herself with a gun against the intruder
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder

or perhaps this woman in Oklahoma who defended herself and her baby with a gun against an intruder:
abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

Is it your position that society would be better off had they not had the guns?

 

[christus_vincit]

Statistics show that the vast majority of people killed by guns are either killed by their own gun, or by someone they know. The way to defend yourself is to not own a gun and be mindful of the company you keep and the situations you put yourself in. When I first meet someone, I look for the warning signs. They can be found when words such as these come up in the conversation:

-“My Ex”

-Restraining order

-Custody battle

-Repossessed

-Bondsman

-Borrow money from In laws

-Warrant

-Court fees

-Visitation

People who actually kill people usually display some or all of these markers long before they actually kill anyone. And again, most people are killed by someone they know. It’s progressive behavior, like university for trouble. If you stay away from people for whom these words are part of their daily vocabulary, avoid dark alleys and convenience stores and buy a dead bolt, you’re probably all safe and sound. Trust me on this.

This offers no rationale as to why a law-abiding, responsible citizen should not be able to own a gun.

 

[Brendan]

Guns are too associated with violence of one sort or another; let us forget guns, and seek the peace and wisdom of Christ. If you’re worried about protecting yourself, pray to your Guardian Angel! Trust in God!

LOVE!

I suppose that you should go tell Pope Francis that he does not trust in God enough, after all, he still has whole companies of armed guards.

Even the guys with halberds carry handguns in their stripped pants.

 

[christus_vincit]

Police response times are not the determining factor in banning private guns. It was more related to the poisonous mentality that gun ownership engendered. People with an axe to grind use guns to settle the score as was demonstrated by the mass shooting at Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996. More people are killed by private ownership than are killed under gun control. It’s that simple equation that some US gun proponents simply can’t handle. Nothing will be lost by trying gun control. Take my word.

Ask yourself : Would I espouse this position if there was an armed intruder in my home and the police were 10 minutes away?

Gun ownership does not necessarily foster a “poisonous mentality”. The violent mentality of society is deeply embedded due to a variety of factors. Guns simply make these violent acts “easier” carry out. Being an upstanding citizen, I would like to have the comfort of knowing that I have the option of using a firearm to defend myself or my family. I can’t see why the actions of criminals should deprive me of that option.

 

[christus_vincit]

He told them to take up weapons for protection did He? Must explain all those bloody pitched battles the early Christians waged while protecting themselves against the Jewish and Roman authorities who were out to ruthlessly exterminate them - AND let’s not forget also exterminate the loved ones they were supposedly obligated to kill to protect.

So a Christian is not called to defend the weak and innocent? He has no right to defend himself or his family, or his Faith? He should just roll over and die while Hitler and Stalin have their way with the world?

 

[JoeMike]

…Scandinavian countries also have high levels of gun ownership, **yet **very little crime.

Scandinavian countries also have high levels of gun ownership, **therefore **very little crime.

Fixed it for you!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Scandinavian countries also have high levels of gun ownership, **therefore **very little crime.

Fixed it for you!

If guns are the answer than everyone should have a gun?

At what age?

Any restrictions?