G
GEddie
Guest
Nope, it will still be going on the day we slide into the sea…
- Status
F
freeRadical
Guest
We haven’t made an idolatry of being armed. We just believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to defend them in any way we see fit. We believe in the Constitution. We don’t believe in giving up essential liberty for temporary safety. We don’t believe the government can protect us and our families. That’s our job and our right. We would rather have dangerous freedom then peaceful slavery.
“Our votes must go together with our guns. After all, any vote we shall have, shall have been the product of the gun. The gun which produces the vote should remain its security officer - its guarantor. The people’s votes and the people’s guns are always inseparable twins.”
– Robert Mugabe
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
– George Washington
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
– George Washington
L
LilyM
Guest
Except that the potential number of victims and the certainty of death of those victims vary according to type of weapon. Individuals may kill other individuals with baseball bats, knives or bare hands but they rarely if ever manage to replicate the death toll of a Columbine, a Sandy Hook et al.
By the way - bombs and other explosive devices are arms and as such would seem to be the subject of the same rights as guns. Why are the good citizens of the US not protesting the government’s intolerable restrictions on your God-given right to make and possess home made bombs? Such would be a great means of self-defence, no?
Just today we read about St Joseph receiving his instruction in a dream to flee to Egypt.
The slaughter of the innocents was coming, and God intended the family to be safe.
You are right, they didn’t replicate the death tolls we see using firearms.
The scale we see would not even blip on their radar.
The constitution does not guarantee the right to explosives.
G
GEddie
Guest
No, it just says “arms” – weapons, not your upper limbs!
However, “arms” in this context includes machetes and switch knives, either of which if you carried around the public streets you’d receive a bunch of grief. Why is no-one tacked off about that ???
Explosive devices definitely fall under “arms” as well.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
Interesting that someone quoted Mugabe in defense of there pro-gun position.
Mugabe is widely considered to be a tyrant.
So it is possible to be armed, and even encouraged to be armed, and still go into tyranny.
So much for the premise that “guns” = “no tyranny”.
ICXC NIKA
Mugabe is widely considered to be a tyrant.
So it is possible to be armed, and even encouraged to be armed, and still go into tyranny.
So much for the premise that “guns” = “no tyranny”.
ICXC NIKA
I must have missed this.
Can you please quote the post where this premise it put forth?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
One of those “people” would be our military. It’s easier to train a soldier to shoot a person* than it is to train a soldier to stab a person*.
*by person I mean a human shaped form since the military has found it easier to train a soldier to engage an object or form than to engage a realistic looking target.
On a battlefield I would rather shoot from a long range then to stab in close quarters.
That has little to do with psychology as it does with the least chance of getting killed.
L
LilyM
Guest
And it was very noteworthy that Herod accomplished such. I did say ‘rarely’, not ‘never’, as exceptions of course do not disprove a rule.
Today it would most likely be a temporary blip on the news record.
I wonder if the Holy Family could as easily have escaped had the executioners been armed with guns?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
-Um, you can’t invalidate psychology (the study of mental processes and behavior) by citing it (mental process of determining the least chance of getting killed and engaging in behavior that supports this).
-You aren’t arguing against me on this, but against modern military science.
-Your logic isn’t supported by history. Review the time period in which both the bullet and blade were primary tools on the battlefield (i.e. the Napoleonic Era). The blade (which caused relatively few deaths) was far more feared than the bullet (which either killed you outright, left you without a limb, or dying of infection and without a limb). Your logic of “least chance of getting killed” would have soldiers fleeing from massed volley fire and standing against a bayonet charge (which historically could break a side before the charge actually made contact).
L
LilyM
Guest
a fact the NRA seem to have conveniently developed amnesia about. I’m sure at least a percentage of those good American citizens engaging in revolutionary change of government in 1776 were armed with bladed weapons or cannon and not guns - or at least employed other than guns from time to time.And doesn’t the US national anthem talk of ‘rockets red glare/bombs bursting in air’? The founders of your nation seemed to have no problem with use of explosive devices to protect liberty. Why so squeamish now?
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
Blade laws differ wildly across the U.S., often changing with every municipality or state. But openly carrying a machete or even a ‘switch’ knife is perfectly legal in many cases. The issue that arises is when it’s concealed. Just look at the next group of 1% bikers you see, they’re often openly carrying knives that one could label a small sword!
Additionally, to a great extent explosive devices can be legally owned and purchased. Even many military grade items such as grenades or HE rounds. Like true automatic assault weapons though significant regulatory burdens are placed on them.
If you wish to brandish a sword instead of a modern gun in the face of a modern army, rock on.
Yes, absolutely. God ordained such.
But just the same, the gun itself is of little consequence as much as the entire disregard for life and the lust for power.
As I have said earlier, the tool has little to do with the decision to end a life.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
When did the topic switch from the psychological impact different weapons have on the act of killing to which weapon is most effective on today’s battlefields (battlefields in which soldiers are still issued bayonets for)? Should I conclude you are unable to actually answer my points and are just trying to change the topic?
Apologies. But I do not plan on pursuing points that do not really pertain to the topic.
If you wish to claim the tool makes the psychological impact easier, then find evidence to that effect.
As it is, there is a very strong case that the decision to kill has nothing to do with the tools available.
And there is also a fairly large group of people that may find it insulting that people believe they are more likely to decide to kill someone simply because they own a gun.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Ignoring the fact that you have yet to present any evidence for your position I’ll steer you toward LTC Grossman’s body of works as evidence for my position. One could hardly argue that he is not an expert on the topic we are discussing (professor of military science, taught psychology at West Point, US Army Ranger).
Care to provide evidence for your argument now, or would my above be pursuing a point that has nothing to do with the topic?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Um, no I’ve never claimed that. I countered your comments concerning there being no psychological impact in using a firearm to kill versus any other weapon or tool to kill. Perhaps you should reread what I’ve actually wrote instead assuming what I am claiming.
Also, you seem to have forgotten to provide evidence supporting your claim. Can I assume you provide such in your next post?
- Status