Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Achatius]

I think that you yourself are trying to attack Libero’s credibility there ani lbi…

 

[Achatius]

But if you are giving the guns to the good guys legally, then the bad guys can get them too surely? So a disarmement of everyone would be the safest option wouldn’t it?

And yes they are rlg94086.

 

[Sir_Knight]

rlg94086:

In my interpretation, the Vatican is saying that private citizens should be allowed to own small arms to protect their family - that it is a right and possibly a “serious duty” to do so. I don’t believe the Vatican is saying you should own a gun or must own a gun.

However, don’t forget that the CCC tells us that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others. Given the fact that we have a GRAVE duty to do something, doesn’t that mean that we should use the BEST possible means to perform that duty?

And the best means of self defense in MOST CASES is with a handgun. Therefore, isn’t the Vatican indirectly implying that we should own guns?

 

[Achatius]

No you are simply interpreting this text for the means of what you want it to imply, if you take it like that it could mean a number of things. And the bible also says thou shalt not kill, and that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; so to take the life and body away would be to defile this.

 

[Libero]

Why not?

As I was merely replying to you, why don’t you try and prove why appeasement always will go wrong?

Asked and answered.

This is just me being awkward, but that question will never be answered to me, it is in itself a rhetorcial question - are guns a solution?

95% of gun confrontations are situations in which no shots are fired. No shots. Zero shots. Therefore the issue is not combatted but addressed.

Have we any fact for that? I apologise in advance if it has already been provided and I have overlooked it. Also, are these confrontations where both parites hold guns, or both parties are an active part of the confrontation, not just someone randomly drawing a gun on another.

I have not argued this. I take it that if you are reduced to putting words in my mouth, then you have conceded the argument.

Sorry, I misinterpreted when we discussed the fact that you cannot make attempts other than guns, as the criminals are gangs from other neighbourhoods

The police can apprehend a criminal after a crime has been committed. The purpose of private citizens carrying hand guns is to prevent the crime from being committed in the first place.

But this is also the purpose of the trained police, and they are the trained professionals.

The use of the word ‘however’ and your repetition of the accusation that your opposition is hate-filled negates your apology. I take it that if you are reduced to making personal attacks that you have conceded the argument.

Look, I am not that clever with English, I did not throw in an apology only to sneekily counter it.

10 minutes. 30 seconds. How are you coming up with these numbers?

My masters degree in maths, - sorry I will only use numbers from official statisitics from now on.

 

[rlg94086]

Sir Knight:

However, don’t forget that the CCC tells us that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others. Given the fact that we have a GRAVE duty to do something, doesn’t that mean that we should use the BEST possible means to perform that duty?

And the best means of self defense in MOST CASES is with a handgun. Therefore, isn’t the Vatican indirectly implying that we should own guns?

Your argument is sound and I agree with you, but I would remove the last statement. The Vatican is saying you need to protect yourselves and others. One could argue that the best way is to remove guns from the population and only allow the police to have them.

I don’t agree with that argument because A) an armed government with an unarmed populace is a recipe for facist dictatorship and B) you would not be able to get the weapons out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

Ani, I have stated that the Navy was incredibly strong. I have never claimed that our RAF or our army were still intact, and yes, I agree they suffered considerable losses, but I do not accpet that you bailed Britain out, they could still have defended themselves is what I said, and we also did have Northern Ireland, and many Irish volunteers helping us.

You didn’t have Republican ports.

Libero:

I am not downplaying the importance of the Canadian forces, where in stating that Britain could defend itself have I implied that, infact I have gone out of my way to ensure that I do not downplay the Canadian contribution, I believe you have taken this so personally that you are misinterpretting my posts.

Taking something personally is quite different from questioning someone’s statements on the facts. Rather than apologize – without using the word ‘however’ – you have persisted in the face of facts brought to bear on your assertion and now escalated by suggesting that your opposition is not justified on the facts but instead taking things personally. That tactic doesn’t work, I am afraid.

Libero:

If this topic is mentioned again, I will simply ignore it

Duly noted and matched in kind.

Libero:

P.S. Britain was not crying wolf.

If Britain was not crying wolf when she requested help then her military had fallen – if you will – from a position of supremacy.

 

[Libero]

TITLE:

Re: Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

 

[Sir_Knight]

Achatius:

But if you are giving the guns to the good guys legally, then the bad guys can get them too surely? So a disarmement of everyone would be the safest option wouldn’t it?

And how are you going to accomplish this? The good guys will either turn in their guns because that is the law or, since the guns are legally owened, there are records of who owns what and the guns can be taken from them.

How are you going to get the bad guys to co-operate? The guns are owned illegally so there is no record of who might own a gun and they are not going to freely give them up on their own.

So you will have disarmed the good guys who are not the source of the problem and left the guns in the hands of the bad guys who ARE the source of the problem.

Instead of addressing the problem, you made it worse – bad guys still have guns and now good guys are less able to defend themselves.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

As I was merely replying to you, why don’t you try and prove why appeasement always will go wrong?

We already have.

Libero:

This is just me being awkward, but that question will never be answered to me, it is in itself a rhetorcial question - are guns a solution?

If it is a rhetorical question then you are obliged (rhetorically) to append to it some support for the notion that guns are not a solution. Which you have yet to do.

Libero:

Have we any fact for that? I apologise in advance if it has already been provided and I have overlooked it. Also, are these confrontations where both parites hold guns, or both parties are an active part of the confrontation, not just someone randomly drawing a gun on another.

The fact that private citizens had guns de-escalated the confrontation posed by criminals. Most criminals want a quick grab. They don’t want confrontations, challenges, complications, witnesses, delays, and any number of things which would prevent them from getting what they want quickly. And they certainly don’t want anything that would led them to be arrested.

Libero:

But this is also the purpose of the trained police, and they are the trained professionals.

We have already covered this. It is not the purpose of the trained police. It is their job to apprehend a criminal after a crime has been committed. The police may at their discretion intervene on a scene they happen upon. The point is that, when the police are called, there is a lag time between the 911 call and the arrival of the police. It is what private citizens do in that lag time that is in question.

Libero:

Look, I am not that clever with English, I did not throw in an apology only to sneekily counter it.

I have a degree in English. The word ‘but’ or the word ‘however’ operates to negate what has been said in the first part of the sentence.

Libero:

My masters degree in maths, - sorry I will only use numbers from official statisitics from now on.

The question was how are you coming up with these numbers. I am not convinced that your masters degree in maths led you to these numbers. Official statistics are good. Formulae and equations are also good.

 

[Achatius]

But I don’t really agree that that is the right way to go about defend youselves.

 

[Achatius]

Ani lbi and Libero calm it…

 

[Sir_Knight]

rlg94086:

Your argument is sound and I agree with you, but I would remove the last statement. The Vatican is saying you need to protect yourselves and others. One could argue that the best way is to remove guns from the population and only allow the police to have them.

I don’t agree with that argument because A) an armed government with an unarmed populace is a recipe for facist dictatorship and B) you would not be able to get the weapons out of the hands of criminals.

My point exactly.

 

[Achatius]

rlg94086:

I don’t agree with that argument because A) an armed government with an unarmed populace is a recipe for facist dictatorship and B) you would not be able to get the weapons out of the hands of criminals.

I am sure with the State’s backing the guns would be able to be located and confiscated, and the illegal sources (if guns were banned) could be located and closed down… or maybe not i don’t know.

 

[Libero]

If it is a rhetorical question then you are obliged (rhetorically) to append to it some support for the notion that guns are not a solution. Which you have yet to do.

How about the fact that guns cause accidents, I wouldn’t want to put my kids in situations of danger, even if one day it may protect them, no matter how strict your precautions from accidents are, there is always possiblity for accidents.

The fact that private citizens had guns de-escalated the confrontation posed by criminals. Most criminals want a quick grab. They don’t want confrontations, challenges, complications, witnesses, delays, and any number of things which would prevent them from getting what they want quickly. And they certainly don’t want anything that would led them to be arrested.

Do you have any statistics proving what you said?

We have already covered this. It is not the purpose of the trained police. It is their job to apprehend a criminal after a crime has been committed. The police may at their discretion intervene on a scene they happen upon. The point is that, when the police are called, there is a lag time between the 911 call and the arrival of the police. It is what private citizens do in that lag time that is in question.

Well that is how the job of your police officers is defined, not ours, GMP have recently taken up a new slogan “fighting crime, protecting people” they cannot just lie, and they do intervene, they are the responsible authority, as Paul does explain in the bible.

I have a degree in English. The word ‘but’ or the word ‘however’ operates to negate what has been said in the first part of the sentence.

Well, I do know this, but my intention in using however was not to withdraw my apology, but rather to show I was not fully agreeing with you, sorry if I used it incorrectly.

The question was how are you coming up with these numbers. I am not convinced that your masters degree in maths led you to these numbers. Official statistics are good. Formulae and equations are also good.

Well I wasnt being serious, I was trying to lighten the very tense atmosphere here, and I don’t have a Masters Degree in maths, and I really have no intention in getting one - or in English for that matter.

 

[MikeWM]

Achatius:

I am sure with the State’s backing the guns would be able to be located and confiscated, and the illegal sources (if guns were banned) could be located and closed down… or maybe not i don’t know.

There are various carrot and stick ways of doing it. Amnesties, followed by stronger punishments after the amnesty is over, for example.

Mike

 

[wabrams]

Libero:

How about the fact that guns cause accidents, I wouldn’t want to put my kids in situations of danger, even if one day it may protect them, no matter how strict your precautions from accidents are, there is always possiblity for accidents.

If thats how you feel, better not put your kids in a car or let them ride their bikes in the street.

 

[Achatius]

The fact that private citizens had guns de-escalated the confrontation posed by criminals. Most criminals want a quick grab. They don’t want confrontations, challenges, complications, witnesses, delays, and any number of things which would prevent them from getting what they want quickly. And they certainly don’t want anything that would led them to be arrested.

With this in mind it can be said that criminals would not want a shoot ut, they just want to have your telly and run off, so if you just let them and claim on contents insurance, this has provided a better situation for everybody surely? No bloodshed, or taking of lives, and no opportunity for terminal accidents.

 

[Achatius]

There is a difference between letting your child ride a bike and leaving a possibilty that you will shoot them.

 

[wabrams]

Achatius:

With this in mind it can be said that criminals would not want a shoot ut, they just want to have your telly and run off, so if you just let them and claim on contents insurance, this has provided a better situation for everybody surely? No bloodshed, or taking of lives, and no opportunity for terminal accidents.

Except it gives criminals free reign knowing they can invade any home and take whatever they like whenever they want.