A New Jersey man gets seven years for being a responsible gun owner!

[JRKH]

Not true.
Whoever sold that bill of goods to you needs to give you your money back.
There are many purposes for guns. Destruction is one. But there are many that are not built for destruction at all.
But secondary to that, if the sole purpose of an object is destructive…so what?
Destructive does not equal immoral

For clarity’s sake I will take issue with this one point of your otherwise fine post.
Unless one wants to include “nail guns” and blank pistols, and such in the catagory, the purpose of a gun IS destruction, or at least damage. Hunting destroys the life of the animal thus allowing us to eat it’s flesh. Skeet and trap dshooting destroys the clay target. Target shooting “destroys” or at least damages the target etc.

But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the same claim can be made for other devises such as knives. A knife has no other function than to damage or destroy.

Thus your final statement above is absolutely correct. Guns knives, TNT, Radiation (used in treating cancer) have but one fuction - To destroy.

Peace
James

 

[LDNCatholic]

Cite the Hungerford massacre if you must Comcille but I can guarantee if one or two of the victims had been carrying pistols the murderer would not have got far.

As I live in the UK I will respect the laws of the country. However people have a legitimate right to defend themselves. Up to and including the death of their attacker if need be.

Here in the UK firearms are almost completely outlawed, and yet gun crime still exists. I know at least 4 houses within a 5 mile radius of my home from which I could buy anything from a pistol to a semi automatic weapon, from rifles to shotguns.

Banning firearms completely has just ensured that only the criminals can get a hold of them.

There is NO reason that people with proper psychiatric evaluation, regular training and the appropriate background checks should not be legally allowed to carry a handgun or own a rifle.

Leaving us unarmed against savages with weapons, in my mind, almost borders on an abuse of human rights.

 

[SamH]

If guns cause crime all of mine are defective…

I agree that guns are morally neutral…initially. Then man endows them with his values. Think of the billion dollar worldwide industry that markets guns as prized tokens of manliness.

So is it wrong that my wife has a CCW and always carries (except at the school were she teaches)? Just what exactly is manly about a 5’ tall 105 pound mother of two?

 

[vz71]

For clarity’s sake I will take issue with this one point of your otherwise fine post.
Unless one wants to include “nail guns” and blank pistols, and such in the catagory, the purpose of a gun IS destruction, or at least damage. Hunting destroys the life of the animal thus allowing us to eat it’s flesh. Skeet and trap dshooting destroys the clay target. Target shooting “destroys” or at least damages the target etc.

But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the same claim can be made for other devises such as knives. A knife has no other function than to damage or destroy.

Thus your final statement above is absolutely correct. Guns knives, TNT, Radiation (used in treating cancer) have but one fuction - To destroy.

Peace
James

Thanks.
For the record, I include starter pistols and flare guns in my definition of gun.
And there are also the hammer drive tool, which I am certain is also a gun…but with a different purpose (that of driving nails into cement).

 

[Graubo3]

Third, the oft-quoted defence of killing wildlife to feed one’s family is an archaic argument.
It bespeaks of a time of rugged individualism. It appeals atavistically to a primitive instinct, that of the hunter/gatherer. Whether we like it or not the world has become increasingly homogenised. Even in one-time ‘primitive’ societies there are rudimentary means of commercial distribution and retailing. We are daily distanced from our spear-carrying roots.

I would like you to argue your position with my spouse that has 3 fresh Bambis in the freezer for our family. Archaic? Possibly, but has withstood the test of time. I thought the “rock-chuckers” preceded the “spear-carriers”?

Fourth, I recall the news stories surrounding an horrific shooting spree in the town of Hungerford, UK, several years back. A lone gunman shot dead a number of people in this otherwise quiet English town. A psychologist commented at the time that, despite our brilliant scientific and technological advances as a species, we ultimately know very little about the human heart. So, this is where our focus should be: cure the violent heart and you will not need a tool to express that violence.

Tragedies can occur anytime, anywhere, and by any means. Many in the world believe that we have a right to defend ourselves. Just because you don’t, does not mean we have to live like you. The older I get, the less I care about the self-elevated experts in their fields of study, their agendas, and the “religion” and worship of these supposed experts. I wonder why psychologists know little of the heart?

I realise, gentlemen, that I am discussing a very heated subject. I know that Americans value highly their right to bear arms. But I truly believe that guns are the result of a disordered desire that is born in the human heart. And here is where our answers lie.

I guess that I feel that your POV is disordered and of course I would never tell someone that, unless their POV was expressed with an air of superiority first. Prove that I go against Church teachings. I believe that your judging another’s heart is pretty well defined by the Church. Have a nice weekend.

Peace, Graubo

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

After reading the following historical facts, read the part
about Switzerland twice!

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control… From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million*
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated…

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million*.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens.’

Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade mainland United States because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.

SWITZERLAND** ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!**

SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

**SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY **
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

Kennesaw, GA imposed a law that every head of household must keep at least one gun. The crime rates plummeted. In contrast, where there are the most gun laws, there is the highest crime rates. (NYC, DC, Chicago, Detroit)

IT’S A NO BRAINER!
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

 

[mellowcalico]

First off… I think this guy needs to appeal. I am not sure why he can’t and he has to wait on a pardon. But if they left out evidence and forced a man to be guilty until proven innocent–that’s just wrong.

colmcille1, hi there! I don’t own a gun and I don’t want one. But I don’t have a problem with others owning guns–it’s their right under our Constitution.

To answer some of your questions, there are reasons people would want to own them other than to be violent towards others.

First off, there is a lot of hunting in the U.S. and people do use this food to feed their families. I grew up in an area where this was true, They’d bag a few deer, geese, whatever and store them in a deep freeze and have meat for the year. We have a problem with over population of a lot of animals (like deer) since their natural predators were wiped out long ago. So not only do people feed their families this way, they also provide a service. If people weren’t hunting and eating them, the animals would just be killed by the state when their numbers got out of hand and left to rot. I should note that almost all gun owners I know are hunters.

Secondly, some people use them for self defense. I personally wouldn’t–I don’t think I could. But I don’t begrudge someone their way of doing things. I used to work for a photographer who had two guns in the office, in locked boxes. He used them when he worked in the Middle East (otherwise he kept them locked up). He said he’d been shot at there and wanted to be able to protect himself if need be.

Some people are collectors. I knew a man who had hundreds of antique guns. They really were interesting to look at–even to me. He certainly didn’t use them for violence (unless he planned on clubbing someone with them) since they all had their firing mechanisms removed.

I guess that’s it in a nutshell. I think there are legitimate reasons for people to own guns–even if I don’t care to own one myself.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Another reason I carry a gun because carrying a cop is too heavy. :yup:

 

[colmcille1]

Yeah. I have often thought they were misguided in allowing the javelin throw as well.
And wrestling. And the high jump,…etc.


Hi vz71,
Being flippant in a debate weakens your position straightaway. However, I will answer your post as I am an eternal optimist (years of contemplation of a gun-free peacefulness ensured that) and hope that you may learn a bit about politeness in debate.

Not true.
Whoever sold that bill of goods to you needs to give you your money back.
There are many purposes for guns. Destruction is one. But there are many that are not built for destruction at all.
But secondary to that, if the sole purpose of an object is destructive…so what?
Destructive does not equal immoral

Well, you cannot simplify the moral implications of gun “culture” by such a formula.

You should get out more.
Your statements are simply not true.
I know several people that have routinely depended upon hunting for food as they simply did not have the money to spare anywhere else.
My own parents before I was born depended upon hunting for food.
My wife as well ended up eating plenty of deer meat as a child when her family ran short of funds.

Again, your tone betrays a meanness of debating impetus.
You cannot definitively state that my statements are not true. Truth is a malleable notion. Those who support the widespread use of guns know that clearly and exploit it fully.

No safeguard will ever be perfect. The wrong people will always be able to get their hands on a gun and do horrific damage with it.
But then, the same can be said for the automobile. Or a hammer. Or a crowbar. Or a bottle of beer…etc.

Ah, now here’s an interesting thing, sir. The man in question was a member of the local gun club. He fulfilled all the strict criteria for membership. So he was not a wrong person when he joined, right? Of course not. But we can only speculate on what went “wrong” to trigger such an horrific event.

It would not be nearly as “heated” if you would stick to statements that are actually true.

If I may add a personal note here. About twenty years back, I was involved in the acting business. On set we were filming a send-up of the infamous mountain men scene in the movie ‘Deliverance’. I was playing the yokel with the gun. For this purpose, I was given an Italian pump-action shotgun. The weapon, of course, was unloaded and the gun’s owner was on set all the time. When I held this beast of a thing the instant feeling of power was unnerving. I was glad when filming finished and I could rid myself of it. Now if this weapon gave me this feeling immediately, imagine the effect possessing one of these things can have on a person with blood lust? My whole point here is that guns serve the twisted desire. We are all prone to any number of emotions due to any number of events in our lives. Remove the gun and you remove the deadly wrongheaded “solution” of a disordered mind.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Remove the gun and you remove the deadly wrongheaded “solution” of a disordered mind.

Because nobody has ever been stabbed with a knife, bludgeoned with a crowbar, run over by a car, or beaten to death at the bare hands of someone with such a disordered mind.

In the UK we’ve almost been brainwashed into believing that guns are morally evil and that they must be completely banned. I think it’s a masterstroke on the part of our government, who at one time used that very policy on conquered lands to subdue the populace more effectively.

You can blame the tool if it helps you deal with the fact that some people are downright vicious, but I can’t say I agree with you.

If my mother or sister was accosted in the street late one night I’d rather hear that they felt powerful while sending their attacker to his Maker rather than felt powerless as he did something unspeakable to them.

 

[SamH]

If I may add a personal note here. About twenty years back, I was involved in the acting business. On set we were filming a send-up of the infamous mountain men scene in the movie ‘Deliverance’. I was playing the yokel with the gun. For this purpose, I was given an Italian pump-action shotgun. The weapon, of course, was unloaded and the gun’s owner was on set all the time. When I held this beast of a thing the instant feeling of power was unnerving. I was glad when filming finished and I could rid myself of it. Now if this weapon gave me this feeling immediately, imagine the effect possessing one of these things can have on a person with blood lust? My whole point here is that guns serve the twisted desire. We are all prone to any number of emotions due to any number of events in our lives. Remove the gun and you remove the deadly wrongheaded “solution” of a disordered mind.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

I agree, you shouldn’t be allowed to own or handle any kind of weapon.

 

[vz71]

If I may add a personal note here. About twenty years back, I was involved in the acting business. On set we were filming a send-up of the infamous mountain men scene in the movie ‘Deliverance’. I was playing the yokel with the gun. For this purpose, I was given an Italian pump-action shotgun. The weapon, of course, was unloaded and the gun’s owner was on set all the time. When I held this beast of a thing the instant feeling of power was unnerving. I was glad when filming finished and I could rid myself of it. Now if this weapon gave me this feeling immediately, imagine the effect possessing one of these things can have on a person with blood lust…

Your running the comparison the wrong way.
If you get such feelings handling an unloaded weapon, you should not have one.
Clearly you have such feelings of ‘blood lust.’

I can assure you the vast majority of gun owners feel nothing like what you describe when handling a gun.

So please, do not project onto everyone else your own shortfall.

 

[colmcille1]

Cite the Hungerford massacre if you must Comcille but I can guarantee if one or two of the victims had been carrying pistols the murderer would not have got far.

Hi LDN,
I beg to differ here. You cannot say definitively that this would have been the case. This man was a member of a local gun club. He was an expert shot. How easy would it be to actually fire a gun one in self-defence against a man armed to the teeth?

As I live in the UK I will respect the laws of the country. However people have a legitimate right to defend themselves. Up to and including the death of their attacker if need be.

**The legitimacy of this right is by no means a clear-cut issue. There are many things to be factored into each individual situation. **Here in the UK firearms are almost completely outlawed, and yet gun crime still exists. I know at least 4 houses within a 5 mile radius of my home from which I could buy anything from a pistol to a semi automatic weapon, from rifles to shotguns.

B]Yes, the same situation applies here in Ireland as well. This is “better” than having a society where guns are so widespread that ownership is seen as part of a proud value system.

]Banning firearms completely has just ensured that only the criminals can get a hold of them.

**And the forces of law and order here in Ireland are damn glad of this situation because there is a measure of containment involved in such a situation. **

There is NO reason that people with proper psychiatric evaluation, regular training and the appropriate background checks should not be legally allowed to carry a handgun or own a rifle.

As I indicated in my earlier post, the man at the centre of the Hungerford tragedy was a model gun-owner. He owned an array of weapons. He used them in a deliriously sickening “solution”.

Leaving us unarmed against savages with weapons, in my mind, almost borders on an abuse of human rights.

To depict criminals as savages is fine until one looks at case histories of those who meticulously plan and execute shootings. There are evil minds are work but ones with fixed “goals” nonetheless. They see guns as the bridge between distorted thoughts and feelings and the sought-after “solutions”.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[vz71]

Again, your tone betrays a meanness of debating impetus.
You cannot definitively state that my statements are not true. Truth is a malleable notion. Those who support the widespread use of guns know that clearly and exploit it fully.

I simply am noting specific examples that show your argument to be untrue.
Once these examples are provided, then YES, I can definitively state your statements are untrue.
Apologies if you find it painful, such is the price of flawed logic.

 

[vz71]

Again, your tone betrays a meanness of debating impetus.
You cannot definitively state that my statements are not true. Truth is a malleable notion. Those who support the widespread use of guns know that clearly and exploit it fully.

Truth is not a malleable notion.

 

[vz71]

To depict criminals as savages is fine until one looks at case histories of those who meticulously plan and execute shootings. There are evil minds are work but ones with fixed “goals” nonetheless. They see guns as the bridge between distorted thoughts and feelings and the sought-after “solutions”.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Criminals may look at a gun in that way.
As I have never been a criminal I cannot really say with certainty what they perceive the gun as. Perhaps you have been and therefore can speak of the criminal mind with some first hand authority.

However it is entirely illogical to apply the thoughts of the criminal towards a weapon to the average law abiding citizen.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Hi LDN,
I beg to differ here. You cannot say definitively that this would have been the case. This man was a member of a local gun club. He was an expert shot. How easy would it be to actually fire a gun one in self-defence against a man armed to the teeth?

Comcille,

Being a member of a local gun club does not protect you from being shot. Gun clubs primarily involve target shooting rather than anti firearm tactics.
If this man was a former member of the armed forces or a police marksman this might have afforded him certain skills.
In any case common sense dictates facing an armed man while armed yourself gives you a much better chance than facing him unarmed.

The legitimacy of this right is by no means a clear-cut issue. There are many things to be factored into each individual situation.

No. It is clear cut. I have an absolute right to self defence which I will exercise. Should a man try to kill me I will attempt to subdue him as quickly as I’m able. If that requires me ending his life then better him than me. I am not allowed to own a firearm and as a law abiding citizen of the United Kingdom I shall abide by that law. However if I was legally able to obtain a better tool with which to defend myself or those unable to defend themselves I would happily do so.

Yes, the same situation applies here in Ireland as well. This is “better” than having a society where guns are so widespread that ownership is seen as part of a proud value system.

Who said anything about incorporating them into a value system? Guns are morally neutral and will always remain so.

And the forces of law and order here in Ireland are damn glad of this situation because there is a measure of containment involved in such a situation.

All due respect but from experience, it’s not as rough in Ireland as it is in the UK. And they have (slightly) more relaxed laws regarding firearms

To depict criminals as savages is fine until one looks at case histories of those who meticulously plan and execute shootings. There are evil minds are work but ones with fixed “goals” nonetheless. They see guns as the bridge between distorted thoughts and feelings and the sought-after “solutions”.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Intelligence is not a sign of civility. One can be a university professor and still be a savage.

 

[colmcille1]

Your running the comparison the wrong way.
If you get such feelings handling an unloaded weapon, you should not have one.
Clearly you have such feelings of ‘blood lust.’

I can assure you the vast majority of gun owners feel nothing like what you describe when handling a gun.

So please, do not project onto everyone else your own shortfall.

Hi vz,
The above statement undoes everything you have stated up to now!
How do you know this as a FACT?

BTW, the feeling of power I experienced when I initially handled this weapon lasted for about thirty seconds. This was then replaced by a nauseous feeling of sadness for the rest of the filming, a full three hours. I think this adequately shows that I do not possess blood lust. I know what my feelings are fully with regards to weaponry. And I am saddened by the arguments of those who take pride in gun ownership. There’s no projecting going on here. That is your interpretation and alas, I cannot alter that. Yet I do not set great store by said interpretative efficacy given your statement about “the vast majority of gun owners”. I would be very keen to hear your defence of this statement.

God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[SamH]

To depict criminals as savages is fine until one looks at case histories of those who meticulously plan and execute shootings. There are evil minds are work but ones with fixed “goals” nonetheless. They see guns as the bridge between distorted thoughts and feelings and the sought-after “solutions”.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Agreed.

The greatest savages on earth have been some of the best educated and socially refined. One need only look to those that demanded their countrymen be disarmed to show their social advancement. Hitler, Mao, Lenin and Pol Pot all claimed that “citizens” had no need for arms, then went on to show exactly why armed citizens were an enemy of their government.

 

[Graubo3]

If I may add a personal note here. About twenty years back, I was involved in the acting business. On set we were filming a send-up of the infamous mountain men scene in the movie ‘Deliverance’. I was playing the yokel with the gun. For this purpose, I was given an Italian pump-action shotgun. The weapon, of course, was unloaded and the gun’s owner was on set all the time. When I held this beast of a thing the instant feeling of power was unnerving. I was glad when filming finished and I could rid myself of it. Now if this weapon gave me this feeling immediately, imagine the effect possessing one of these things can have on a person with blood lust? My whole point here is that guns serve the twisted desire. We are all prone to any number of emotions due to any number of events in our lives. Remove the gun and you remove the deadly wrongheaded “solution” of a disordered mind.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

I agree, you shouldn’t be allowed to own or handle any kind of weapon.

I have to agree with the elder statesman SamH on this one. Colmcille has worked in the land of make believe, and on a “Deliverance” set to boot. I wonder why?

As my previous post mentioned, does the Church allow you to judge other’s hearts? Have a nice weekend.

Peace, Graubo