Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

For me, I am all about gun education focusing first on preventing the need to use it. Secure one’s home and person first. Then the need for defense is less likely. I am also in favor of combing databases of those with mental illness and including that as part of a background check.

But let’s face it, there are lot’s of possible answers to the gun issue, some better than others, without a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Actually there is no other possible answer…(Repeal of the Second Amendment) without violating rights.

 

[EMFrost]

Hello again Isaiah: The problem is people with guns.

Because alcohol kills people is no reason to smoke, drive with your eyes closed, dive into an empty swimming pool, or - own a gun,

Do you have any idea how things were like down here in the days following Katrina? We have very good reasons for owning guns and having them on hand to face the problem. The problem being there are people who have no qualms with murdering their fellow man despite all morality, reason, or law.

Longing Soul, that argument of yours can also be applied to gun laws. Gun laws are not the all fixing solution to the gun violence. For one in New Orleans- most of the drive by shootings, home invasions, etc are done with illegal guns. Disarming the law abiding citizens of their legaly owned weapons is not going to help. In fact you’re leaving them defenseless to the violence they face everyday.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Have we stepped into the twilight zone?

More insults? But you have “nothing” to add but insults and your imaginary agenda fueled by your own fears and imagination. Thanks for your concern through.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Nobody is calling for a complete ban on guns. They are part and parcel of police and military work. They are essential for farmers and have other commercial uses. They are a fun passtime for sporting shooters. All of these areas of gun use are relatively regulated and safe. The purpose is clear and primary in these situations and the potential for abuse and misuse is limited.

They are part of the Bill of Rights which every American has. Protection of life is a RIGHT here. Sorry you have issues with that.

To you they are for FUN.

The problem with guns promoted as the way to meet someones need for ‘security of person’, is similar to when alcohol is promoted as a way to meet a fundamental need in someone. When it’s used for dutch courage or as a sedative or even as a way of killing emotional or physical pain.

Again your psychology has left reality and extended to outer space. You’ll have to apply factual reality to your assumption and develope the theory to actually make sense. Not just throw bones for others to chase. Patients do this.

When a huge emphasis is put into these products as being a ‘saviour’ of some sort, that’s when they become a problematic part of society. They cause more harm than the good they are supposed to be for and people develop an inordinate reliance on them to the exclusion of healthy solutions to their unmet needs.

A savior? Wow, your imagination is in overdrive. I’m glad to see my posts inspired you to think though. Now if we could just reel it in to reality.

I don’t know about US attitudes to alcohol, but it is a significant problem in Australia that is constantly being addressed with legal restrictions. Nightclubs and bars are forced to have lockout policies and limited night time trading hours. It is illegal to serve a drunk person alcohol over the counter of clubs etc. etc.

Ha as I expected you don’t known So you should apply paragraph one to the fact you don’t know “also”.

These measures are all subject to civil rights objections, but at the end of the day, most sensible people understand that the common good outweighs the individuals right to drink himself to death or knock around other club goers and the public.

Eh…OK you must be applying Australian logic here. Its a Constitutional Right which would be a circular conversation with you. And with no response from you. They have the right to protect life and liberty thus survive and by bearing arms. Alcohol has nothing to do with that. Nor is it 1-2 of the Bill of Rights. Nor is alcohol inalienable.

They just want the type of regulations that encourage people to regard guns realistically and weigh the right they are said to serve against how they serve the common good of all.

Who is “they” by the way? That would be who exactly?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know whats going on in Australia but it sounds like you have a civil war with the alcoholics over there? So your saying you need to protect yourself from the alcoholics?

“in Australia that is constantly being addressed with legal restrictions. Nightclubs and bars are forced to have lockout policies and limited night time trading hours. It is illegal to serve a drunk person alcohol over the counter of clubs”

“common good outweighs the individuals right to drink himself to death or knock around other club goers and the public.”

And over here should one of the Australian drunks stumble through the front door in your home with a “gun” and threatens you what is your “logical” plan here LongingSoul???

Are you going with the martyrdom plan for Jesus? Taking one for the team? I can’t see secular Australia going with that plan, but OK.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Nobody is calling for a complete ban on guns. They are part and parcel of police and military work. They are essential for farmers and have other commercial uses. They are a fun passtime for sporting shooters. All of these areas of gun use are relatively regulated and safe. The purpose is clear and primary in these situations and the potential for abuse and misuse is limited.

I don’t know about US attitudes to alcohol, “but it is a significant problem in Australia” that is constantly being addressed with legal restrictions.

Nightclubs and bars are forced to have lockout policies and limited night time trading hours. It is illegal to serve a drunk person alcohol over the counter of clubs etc. etc.

sensible people understand that the common good outweighs the individuals right to drink himself to death or knock around other club goers and the public.

No one wants guns eliminated from society and no one wants alcohol eliminated from society. They just want the type of regulations that encourage people to regard guns realistically and weigh the right they are said to serve against how they serve the common good of all.

So lets back back to the drunk Australian coming through your door with a weapon in a home invasion. You seem to “omit” that firearms have not only a valid reason but are in fact the correct understanding for unfortunate use.

I also get the impression you seem to “think” farmers and those subject to wildlife issues on the farm or home are responsible, as are people hunting and target practicing. But you don’t think these same people can be responsible when an animal comes through the front door with a gun. I find this disconnect unrealistic. Not reality.

Also tell me about you “home protection” plan when confronted. I can’t imagine anything but the Christian paradigm coming out. To which I say “Amen” God and Country and the correct understanding of our Rights,

Course in the real world where God is removed, I can’t seem to imagine how your common sense applies other than “It will never happen to me” .

“No one wants guns eliminated from society and no one wants alcohol eliminated from society. They just want the type of regulations that encourage people to regard guns realistically and weigh the right they are said to serve against how they serve the common good of all.”

Do they have a plan for the Australian drunk coming through the door with one of those dangerous shot-guns you guys play with? Check their history out you want to see dangerous. “Shot-Guns” The Australian preference-12-gauge pump?

So they are drunk, and fighting in the bars and then they “leave” if they live through that and make it out to get their shot-gun or and Axe or whatever ,drunk. This sounds like some woe-some stuff.

So would you say here, owning a firearm according to its right might be useful in this home invasion?

Here watch your own issue in Australia

youtu.be/s4r_iEtlPZc

Home Invasions JUMPED 21% in Australia. THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT IS

Hands and feet tied while robbers invaded???

You must be joking me. Most ridiculous nonsense I have ever heard.

Australians forced to hide behind deadbolts??? Thats the PLAN???

Australians are “sending a message to you here” Don’t trust the agenda driven “ANTI-GUN” who have no plan in these situation as I am showing you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Home Invasion…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHome_invasion&ei=5jyMU-uHNKqtsQTxq4GQDw&usg=AFQjCNHVpTk06SZqdubBNThlVOjjrMdcKA

“Home invasion is a term used in the United States to describe illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with violent intent to commit a crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping.”

Home Invasion in CT…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCheshire%2C_Connecticut%2C_home_invasion_murders&ei=fz6MU5uFLqnIsASzrIK4Ag&usg=AFQjCNFnaiIU5ZgOaj7iMrqXHyLGDZr-VQ

Make a plan…Now. There is no single best strategy. Some people can climb out a window and run for help…others live or sleep on upper floors and are unable to flee for physical reasons. If you can safely escape and get help – do it.

Once An Intruder Is Inside

Be very quiet and listen. How many intruders are there? Are they ransacking the house? Are they making their way toward you?

Don’t argue with your spouse about what to do. This alerts the intruder to where you are.

Don’t leave your bedroom with a bat or a flashlight. A surprised intruder is likely to react violently. You have better options available to you than attempting to confront the intruder. If you have family to protect you cannot protect them if the intruder gets past you.

Get to a safe place. A safe room is one of the best options. Unlike what you have seen in the movies, it doesn’t have to be large and filled with gadgets. An interior closet with a sturdy door that opens out is just fine. Put a deadbolt lock on the inside of the door and, most important, recharge your cell phone in there every night. Then, if you do hear someone in your home, you can go in the closet, lock it and call the police. Even if the intruder takes a phone off the hook to prevent you from calling for help, you will be able to call the police. You should be safe until the police arrive.

If you don’t have a safe room, gather your family in a room, lock the door and barricade it with furniture and other heavy objects. Choose the most secure room with the best door and lock, stay there.

Make sure you have a charged cell phone. Program your automatic-dial phones to call 911. It’s difficult to push even three buttons when you’re panicked and your hands are shaking. Tell the police dispatcher your address and situation in a few sentences. Be specific.“citizendefensetraining.com”

Guys you need a “PLAN” I keep talking about this on every thread and no-one has any plan or refuses’s to acknowledge this by “it will never happen to me” The "only"plan I have heard is “martrydom for Jesus” We need to get down to reality with all the rest now.

All of us whom it DID happen to are telling you, YOU NEED A PLAN. I’m willing to talk since we all agree indeed this needs to be done-discuss this issue above?

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is a proven fact that when you find yourself in a lethal confrontation, you will do what you have practiced. If you have not practiced proper procedures and tactics you stand a large chance of losing any confrontation. In fact you can pretty much count on it.

I do not understand the thinking. Prepare for any possibility, you must spend some time on this plan, to suggest guns are indeed an issue indicates you are thinking about a plan, but only arrived at taking every ones firearms and world peace-unrealistic. So I know your thinking about the dangers of these situations, so what about it, saying it will never happen to me, denies your own acknowledgment of the clear dangers you are voicing. You don’t see this?

 

[LongingSoul]

Gary Taylor, I’m not a little weirded out by your page bombing of the social justice forum. I would say perhaps you need a chill pill but I’m not into chemicals or even psychotropic organics so I would suggest some valerian root, a hot chocolate and a lie down… and maybe some classic Aussie 80’s…

youtube.com/watch?v=szmusqqnkj8

Peace, calm, relax, breathe. :heaven:

 

[pnewton]

The argument falls sloppy dead at “Arlington”. You have no answers.

Weird. Because a cemetery exists, you are right?

That’s a double

 

[pnewton]

The only confusion here is yours…

Your not the forum psychologist, sorry you fashion yourself as such. Again, your imagination is running wild on you.

A suggestion, try to stick to the topic, your not a mind reader,

I think we should stick to the Golden Rule. If it is wrong for others to reflect on your emotions, it is wrong for you do the same. Disagreement does not equate to confusion.

 

[pnewton]

Just wanted to add a little fact:

The lowest reported gun owning state in the nation is DC - 3.6%

.

The District of Columbia is not a state. The state with the highest murder rate is Louisiana. It is number 14 in percentage of gun ownership.

Just a little fact clarification.

 

[pnewton]

Actually there is no other possible answer…(Repeal of the Second Amendment) without violating rights.

I do not think I can agree. Wince we do not have the right to murder, there must be some leeway. We have no right to threaten others with death. We have no right to own high explosives, or engage in atomic research. The right to bear arms is subject to definition, and Constitutionally speaking, regulation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think we should stick to the Golden Rule. If it is wrong for others to reflect on your emotions, it is wrong for you do the same. Disagreement does not equate to confusion.

I think its absolute.

Disagreement has lead to confusion and on this continuous point as I have explained and several times. I have seen “no-plan” I have heard “no-plan” I have heard no logic in relation. I have heard the same alarm that we should do something. But no-one has a plan to do something.

Whats does that say?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Weird. Because a cemetery exists, you are right?

That’s a double

You want to argue about nothing? Please I’m busy. I want to talk about everyones plan. I think its absolutely imperative.

 

[pnewton]

I think its absolute.

Disagreement has lead to confusion and on this continuous point as I have explained and several times. I have seen “no-plan” I have heard “no-plan” I have heard no logic in relation. I have heard the same alarm that we should do something. But no-one has a plan to do something.

Whats does that say?

It says either you did not read the thread, or you are being disingenuous. I have mentioned as a society that we could use existing mental health database for checks. I have also addressed the violent culture of America. For an individual, I mentioned that they could make sure less lethal options, more defensive options are considered. Elsewhere, other plans have been mentioned, including making sure gun checks extended to gun shows.

You want to argue about nothing? Please I’m busy. I want to talk about everyones plan.

And you consider Arlington a part of this discussion? You are busy. Yet you responded. Go figure.

 

[pnewton]

Some ideas from the Bishop’s Conference:

With regard to the regulation of fire arms, first, the intent to protect one’s loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible. The Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, in their document, “The International Arms Trade (2006),” emphasized the importance of enacting concrete controls on handguns, for example, noting that “limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe on the rights of anyone.”

Secondly, our entertainers, especially film producers and video game creators, need to realize how their profit motives have allowed the proliferation of movies, television programs, video games and other entertainment that glorify violence and prey on the insecurities and immaturity of our young people. Such portrayals of violence have desensitized all of us.

In their memory and for the sake of our nation, we reiterate our call made in 2000, in our statement, Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, for all Americans, especially legislators, to:
1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms
2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)
3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns
4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons
5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.

usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm

 

[GaryTaylor]

It says either you did not read the thread, or you are being disingenuous.

Actually I did and read the others. What is disingenuous? What you “think” I am being and we shouldn’t be doing with other because of the Golden Rule?

I have mentioned as a society that we could use existing mental health database for checks…

I have mentioned it also, in fact the other was based on this very premise. It still doesn’t negate the point we reached on two threads with home invasion and its reality.

For an individual that they could make sure less lethal options, more defensive options are considered. Elsewhere, other plans have been mentioned, including making sure gun checks extended to gun shows.

Lethal options are your last choice, I agree. I haven’t seen the other ideas elsewhere but what I have shown.

And you consider Arlington a part of this discussion?

I consider the dead their part of the discussion. I’m pretty sure I made the point. You logic I don’t consider part of that discussion.

You are busy. Yet you responded. Go figure.

Golden rule? Go figure. Was there something you did not understand I need to elaborate on?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Some ideas from the Bishop’s Conference:

With regard to the regulation of fire arms, first, the intent to protect one’s loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible. The Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, in their document, “The International Arms Trade (2006),” emphasized the importance of enacting concrete controls on handguns, for example, noting that “limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe on the rights of anyone.”

Secondly, our entertainers, especially film producers and video game creators, need to realize how their profit motives have allowed the proliferation of movies, television programs, video games and other entertainment that glorify violence and prey on the insecurities and immaturity of our young people. Such portrayals of violence have desensitized all of us.

In their memory and for the sake of our nation, we reiterate our call made in 2000, in our statement, Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, for all Americans, especially legislators, to:
1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms
2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)
3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns
4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons
5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.

usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm

God and Country? Thats what I am saying. Heres the thing. I think this is great. But this paradigm is rolled out when needed, but disregarded when its doesn’t seem to fit the anti-gun agenda. Martyrdom was of course applied, but what about the secular?

Not by you of course, but on this very thread also.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But this paradigm is rolled out when needed, but disregarded when its doesn’t seem to fit the anti-gun agenda.

Really? Give an example of when this particular Bishops Conference statement has been disregarded when its doesn’t seem to fit the anti-gun agenda. I’m having a hard time imagining what sort of scenario that might be.