Pastor buys AR-15 at raffle so he could destroy it

  • Thread starter Thread starter Expatreprocedit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree in one sense though. Gun obsession is part of American culture. Sort of like binge drinking in Ireland. The solution in Ireland’s case is not to pretend like binge drinking isn’t a problem, but to acknowledge there is a cultural flaw and try to fix it.
ShrodingersCat, I’m not sure where you are from but I sense that you are not from the USA, so I suppose you could be excused for not understanding America’s fascination with guns. But in order to understand that fascination, one must understand than guns are, as you say, very deeply rooted in the American culture. Guns are part of our heritage and part of our history and help make up, for better or worse, who we are as a people. Asking Americans to give up guns would be like asking the French to give up wine.

When the European explorers first came to America 600 years ago, they all had guns. They used them to hunt for food and, when necessary, defend themselves against hostile natives. As time went on, a gun became an essential part of a man’s everyday life; much like a cell phone is today.

When the American colonies fought its war for independence against the Crown, who was it do did the fighting? It was untrained citizen soldiers all carrying privately owned guns (and who, by the way, defeated the most powerful military empire on Earth at the time!) In an encore thirty years later, the sons and grandsons of these citizen soldiers did it all over again in the War of 1812.

Resolving to never live under a tyrannical government again, it was specifically written into the U.S. Constitution that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed. This right hunting but it was to provide a check and balance against the government overstepping its bounds. In effect it was the people telling the government, "If you overstep your bounds, we will kill you.

This was actually tested during the American Civil War of 1861-1865 when the southern states, feeling oppressed by their northern counterparts, attempted to break away from the rest of the country by taking up arms against it. As it turned out the South failed in their attempt to secede but it illustrates what the U.S. Constitution was provisioned for.

As the westward expansion started in the 1870s guns were again a part of everyday for survival; again for food and protecting against hostile Indians. And since Law Enforcement was virtually nonexistent on the frontier, people had to fend for themselves for personal defense. Guns have been part of America ever since. I remember my father telling me that when he was in high school, sometimes he would go out small game hunting early in the morning early in the morning before heading for classes. A lot of the boys did this and sometimes the principal would even come out to the parking lot at look at the boys’ guns with them, talk about the guns and swap stories. No ever gave it a second thought.

Today many Americans own guns for a variety of reasons including personal defense, sporting, shooting competitions or simply collecting. And that is never going to change; especially now when fewer and fewer Americans are trusting their government every day. It is also important to remember that criminals do not care about gun laws any more than they care about any other laws. That’s why they are criminals. You can pass all the anti-gun laws you want but criminals will still pay no attention to them and continue to commit gun crimes. All these laws do is put more burdens on law-abiding gun owner who are not the ones anyone needs to be afraid of.
 
I would join one in a heartbeat. If, say 100,000 or so armed citizens would march on Washington, surround the White House and demand that President Obama step down I would be right there with them.
And if he said, “No”? What, you’d kill him?

Or just have all 100,000 open up on the White House and everyone in it?

And why 100,000? Why not fewer? Why not 10,000? Or 1,000? Or even a dozen?

If a person decides they want [insert name of elected official they dislike] to step down, should he grab his gun and force the issue?

What happens if the evil, racist, KKK-lovin’ Democrats decide, “Hey, we can use this 2nd Amendment thingy to our advantage”, and decide to “persuade” some Republicans to “Please step down”?
 
Well, that’s always an option. The Constitution gives the people the legal right to do that.
The constitution also gives women the right to abort their unborn children so I don’t accept that (also, I don’t think if gives you that right anyway). Do you think our Church would condone shooting Obama?
 
The constitution also gives women the right to abort their unborn children so I don’t accept that (also, I don’t think if gives you that right anyway). Do you think our Church would condone shooting Obama?
Do you think they would condone shooting Trump?
 
ShrodingersCat, I’m not sure where you are from but I sense that you are not from the USA, so I suppose you could be excused for not understanding America’s fascination with guns. But in order to understand that fascination, one must understand than guns are, as you say, very deeply rooted in the American culture. Guns are part of our heritage and part of our history and help make up, for better or worse, who we are as a people. Asking Americans to give up guns would be like asking the French to give up wine.

When the European explorers first came to America 600 years ago, they all had guns. They used them to hunt for food and, when necessary, defend themselves against hostile natives. As time went on, a gun became an essential part of a man’s everyday life; much like a cell phone is today.

When the American colonies fought its war for independence against the Crown, who was it do did the fighting? It was untrained citizen soldiers all carrying privately owned guns (and who, by the way, defeated the most powerful military empire on Earth at the time!) In an encore thirty years later, the sons and grandsons of these citizen soldiers did it all over again in the War of 1812.

Resolving to never live under a tyrannical government again, it was specifically written into the U.S. Constitution that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed. This right hunting but it was to provide a check and balance against the government overstepping its bounds. In effect it was the people telling the government, "If you overstep your bounds, we will kill you.

This was actually tested during the American Civil War of 1861-1865 when the southern states, feeling oppressed by their northern counterparts, attempted to break away from the rest of the country by taking up arms against it. As it turned out the South failed in their attempt to secede but it illustrates what the U.S. Constitution was provisioned for.

As the westward expansion started in the 1870s guns were again a part of everyday for survival; again for food and protecting against hostile Indians. And since Law Enforcement was virtually nonexistent on the frontier, people had to fend for themselves for personal defense. Guns have been part of America ever since. I remember my father telling me that when he was in high school, sometimes he would go out small game hunting early in the morning early in the morning before heading for classes. A lot of the boys did this and sometimes the principal would even come out to the parking lot at look at the boys’ guns with them, talk about the guns and swap stories. No ever gave it a second thought.

Today many Americans own guns for a variety of reasons including personal defense, sporting, shooting competitions or simply collecting. And that is never going to change; especially now when fewer and fewer Americans are trusting their government every day. It is also important to remember that criminals do not care about gun laws any more than they care about any other laws. That’s why they are criminals. You can pass all the anti-gun laws you want but criminals will still pay no attention to them and continue to commit gun crimes. All these laws do is put more burdens on law-abiding gun owner who are not the ones anyone needs to be afraid of.
This is an enlightening post. It hasn’t changed my opinion but it’s good to be able to understand your perspective a bit better.
 
That premise relies on the assumption that gun control would do that. There is no actual statistical correlation to that, let alone proven causality.

Norway for example, has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe, but one of the lowest gun death rates… Contrast that to the Netherlands, which has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership, yet has nearly the worst rate of murder rate in Western Europe.

And we can also talk about Russia, which has a murder rate 4 times that of the US, but where private gun ownership is banned.

So your premise is flawed right from the start.
I believe Ireland’ is worse. There is only slight difference in the death rates though across all of Europe and you have to remember that it’s very easy to travel across continental Europe with guns since we don’t have border checks other than airports.

With the USA, you’re talking about a > 600% increase from the worst country in Europe and 500% greater than Canada. I’m sure there are countries with different cultures that don’t need gun control. America was probably one of them decades ago. But it isn’t anymore. So something needs to change.
 
I believe Ireland’ is worse. There is only slight difference in the death rates though across all of Europe and you have to remember that it’s very easy to travel across continental Europe with guns since we don’t have border checks other than airports. .
Russia has very tight restrictions on guns. So you still haven shown any correlation between gun controls and low murder rates.

Or are you claiming that Russia is not in Europe?

In regards to border checks, are you claiming that a German can pop over the border, purchase a gun at a gun store and bring it back into Germany, and do so legally.

Or are you referring to an illegal gun trade, which, by definition, happens outside of gun regulations?
. I’m sure there are countries with different cultures that don’t need gun control. America was probably one of them decades ago. But it isn’t anymore. So something needs to change.
Murder rates in the US are actually in decline, even as gun ownership increases. So if there IS correlation between murder rates and gun ownership it would seem that what need to change is MORE gun ownership.
 
The primary purpose of cars is driving. The primary purpose of knives is cutting food or other inanimate objects.

The primary purpose of guns is to kill.

As a side note, the rest of the Western world is, by and large, utterly baffled by the USA’s attitude towards guns.
Given that fguns are used far, far more for target shooting than they are for killing, you analogy does not hold water.

and given that the vast majority of killing done with a gun is perfectly legal - deer and elk hunting for large game, and coyotes and fox and raccoons for small game, your analogy holds no water.

You just have an emotional, and likely visceral aversion to guns - so don’t own one. As to the rest of the world - that is sincerely debatable as to who is being polled. Some of the rest of the Western world - and a significant part of it being socialist in mindset, aka liberal, having an aversion to guns should surprise no one.
 
The Center for Disease Control - the CDC - was banned by Congress from research about guns; what the media failed to acknowledge was the clear bias the head of the CDC had against guns. this was about 15 years ago.

Obama, intending to make an end run around Congress, gave 10,000,000 to the CDC to start the game up again.

However, what the media quietly put in the “not news section” was in part the following:

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Further: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

And further: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

The Brady Campaign, President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the media are (oh, shock of shocks!) strangely silent about the findings. Why? Because the facts don’t match their emotions. As in, “Don’t confuse me with the facts! I already have my mind made up!”

Also cherry picked: the comment that firearm related homicides are 19.5% higher than in other high income countries. Why cherry picked? Because if you remove the murders in Illinois, Washington DC, California and New Jersey, the rates are in line with the other countries. And, as an additional note, those states have the most strict gun laws in the nation, and the highest murder rates.

The silence of the media is a screaming indication of their bias. And so it goes.
 
That premise relies on the assumption that gun control would do that. There is no actual statistical correlation to that, let alone proven causality.

Norway for example, has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe, but one of the lowest gun death rates… Contrast that to the Netherlands, which has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership, yet has nearly the worst rate of murder rate in Western Europe.
The murder rate in Norway is 0.5 per 100,000 people. The Netherlands is only marginally higher at 0.6. I don’t necessarily think gun control is the only answer. Put simply criminals do not use guns in Europe to the extent that they do in the US, and that is why you always hear Americans talking about the need to protect themselves.
 
Put me in the ban all guns column. 🙂
Who do you propose to send into Chicago, or Oakland, or Washington DC, to get the guns from the Black and Latino gang members who are responsible for the majority of gun crimes?
The murder rate in Norway is 0.5 per 100,000 people. The Netherlands is only marginally higher at 0.6. I don’t necessarily think gun control is the only answer. Put simply criminals do not use guns in Europe to the extent that they do in the US, and that is why you always hear Americans talking about the need to protect themselves.
The murder rate of Norwegian Americans is similar to the murder rate in Norway. The same can be said for the murder rate of Dutch Americans. The reality is that the majority of gun murders in the US are committed by young, black criminals, largely targeting other young black criminals. How do you propose to get the guns out of these young men’s hands? Do you think they’re just going to turn them over because you pass a law? If you really want to get the guns out of their hands, a lot of police officers are going to have to kill a lot of young black men. Are you ready for that or have you not thought that far ahead?
 
Who do you propose to send into Chicago, or Oakland, or Washington DC, to get the guns from the Black and Latino gang members who are responsible for the majority of gun crimes?
The local police would be in charge of confiscating the weapons.
 
The local police would be in charge of confiscating the weapons.
How many young black men would you be comfortable with local police killing to confiscate the weapons? How many innocent bystanders would you be willing to accept as collateral damage? You don’t assume they’re just going to turn them over, do you?
 
Who do you propose to send into Chicago, or Oakland, or Washington DC, to get the guns from the Black and Latino gang members who are responsible for the majority of gun crimes?

The murder rate of Norwegian Americans is similar to the murder rate in Norway. The same can be said for the murder rate of Dutch Americans. The reality is that the majority of gun murders in the US are committed by young, black criminals, largely targeting other young black criminals. How do you propose to get the guns out of these young men’s hands? Do you think they’re just going to turn them over because you pass a law? If you really want to get the guns out of their hands, a lot of police officers are going to have to kill a lot of young black men. Are you ready for that or have you not thought that far ahead?
I didn’t say anything about gun control as I don’t really care how you solve the problem (and it’s your problem, not mine). What makes me laugh is the level of denial that exists about the appalling murder rate in the US and the excuses that are trotted out to explain them. The fact is that criminals kill each other with guns in the US because they can get hold of them easily, and the point I made is that this is not a problem in other parts of the western world. Added to that, even if you strip out the black on black murders (as if somehow they don’t count?) the US murder rate at 2.7 per 100,000 people is still 3 times higher than that of Europe, so frankly no the murder rate of European Americans is not the same as that of Europeans. And guess what happens if you compare like with like - yes, the European murder rate falls to minuscule proportions.
 
if you remove the murders in Illinois, Washington DC, California and New Jersey, the rates are in line with the other countries. And, as an additional note, those states have the most strict gun laws in the nation, and the highest murder rates.
Actually, that is complete nonsense. Every single US state has a much higher murder rate than any country in Western Europe. The three US states with the lowest murder rates (which hover around 2 per 100,000, so twice the European average) only account for 5% of the US population

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10320691/US-crime-murders-and-manslaughters-by-state.html
 
How many young black men would you be comfortable with local police killing to confiscate the weapons? How many innocent bystanders would you be willing to accept as collateral damage? You don’t assume they’re just going to turn them over, do you?
Well, the law wouldn’t target just young black men. Anyone found in possession of a gun would have it confiscated.
 
Actually, that is complete nonsense. Every single US state has a much higher murder rate than any country in Western Europe. The three US states with the lowest murder rates (which hover around 2 per 100,000, so twice the European average) only account for 5% of the US population
Tell me, how did the UK go about the process of reducing the amount of guns your country?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top