Revolvers for Everyone!

[CPA2]

Why are we arguing over what 2+2 is? 2+2 in any base five or higher will be 4.

2+2 in base four is 10 and in base three is 11.

I am just having a little fun. I had to study fund accounting, and that was no fun! I would rather use math to accurately shoot a .22 rifle through the bull’s eye at 100 yards, or a .22 pistol at 75 yards. That would be my definition of fun!

 

[gamewell45]

We will have to agree to disagree. Once you accepted the false assumption that gun control (disarming of America) is worth it if just one child is saved, then everything after that is logical. I call that a state of disassociation.

Every choice has a cost. The cost of disarming America, the end purpose of gun control, is too great. We accountants follow the principle of cost versus benefit. If the cost exceeds the benefit, then we do not do anything.

No one will be able to change your mind. My grandmother would say that if you do not listen, you will have to feel. Some people just have to learn everything the hard way. A smart man learns from his own mistakes. A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[gamewell45]

The fact that firearms are designed to kill does not magically impute unto them evil intent. Killing is an amoral act; the reasons for the killing impute moral character to the act.

My example stands. You were not arguing that guns are evil because they were designed to kill, rather that since a certain number of murders can be attributed to (the misuse) of guns, that guns should be banned. Changing gears will not salvage an untenable argument.

The arguments against gun control have been irrefutably presented. The “statistics” you have provided are false and I pointed out a glaring inconsistency in the link you offered. There is not now and never has been a single credible study done to prove that the mere availability of firearms causes normally law-abiding humans to magically turn into gun-crazed killers. Not one. To the contrary, the facts are that human beings commit crimes, whether they choose guns or anything else, and it is human behavior that must be controlled and criminals that must be banned, not coddled and catered to.

The reason gun crime is so high in some parts of the US is because of thug culture and thug mentality - driven by thugs themselves. That is what must be cracked down upon.

Of course, I can hear the bleating now: it’s a matter of freedom of speech to promote gangsta culture and thuggishness! No, it isn’t. When one uses freedom to cause harm or incite immorality, one loses one’s “rights” to “free speech”. On the contrary, gun bans are blatantly illegal, as per the same American constitution the free speech fanatics use to justify gangsta culture.

This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that at the heart of the gun control mania on the Left there lies a deliberate and sinister ploy to disarm Americans. Sorry, but I will not participate in being rendered helpless.

I think I’m going to follow CPA2’s example and say that we are going to agree to disagree since both you and I are firmly cemented in our convictions.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am just having a little fun. I had to study fund accounting, and that was no fun! I would rather use math to accurately shoot a .22 rifle through the bull’s eye at 100 yards, or a .22 pistol at 75 yards. That would be my definition of fun!

I remember taking Cost Accounting. None of that made any sense. LIFO and FIFO I could follow but them when they started with all of these various average methods, that’s when I switch my major from Accounting to Business Administration.

 

[Sir_Knight]

guns are designed to kill living creatures whether they are human or animal

I own over a dozen guns for over a quarter of a century and not a single one of my guns have ever killed any living creature. I guess they must be defective.

 

[CPA2]

I remember taking Cost Accounting. None of that made any sense. LIFO and FIFO I could follow but them when they started with all of these various average methods, that’s when I switch my major from Accounting to Business Administration.

College was a piece of cake. I can teach anyone to be a 4.0 student. These CPA exams are something that I have never faced, however. I am teaching myself 50% of the material and with good review materials, learning the material is not a problem. The problem is the volume of material to learn. It just never ends.

I realize that I never will be “perfectly ready” to take these exams like I was in college. It is very frustrating for me to miss multiple choice questions because I did not understand the call of the question, etc. The examiners are infamous for using unfamiliar verbiage, using distracter information, etc. I keep reminding myself the perfection is the enemy of good enough, and only the examiners know what “good enough” is. I do not have a clue. You get the idea.

Do not think for a moment that college prepares you for these CPA exams. The CPA exams cover twice the material that I had in college. I literally needed three cost accounting texts to cover all of the variance analysis questions on the business exam. Additionally, I had four intermediate accounting texts to pass the financial exam. If you just waltz into these professional exams like this was college, you will limp out of these exams with a failing grade.

I am a 75% CPA - Passed 3 CPA exams by the grace of God - One more exam (auditing) to go. I am taking all of my prayer warriors out to eat after I pass this last exam. If you want to do something useful, say a prayer for me. Now back to the grindstone.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I own over a dozen guns for over a quarter of a century and not a single one of my guns have ever killed any living creature. I guess they must be defective.

I sincerely hope your home is never burgled. Many guns which are used in crimes first get in criminals’ hands due to residence burglaries.

And I have several friends who have lost guns in burglaries, in fact.

 

[greggy53]

I sincerely hope your home is never burgled. Many guns which are used in crimes first get in criminals’ hands due to residence burglaries.

And I have several friends who have lost guns in burglaries, in fact.

And that of course excuses the burglar and lays the blame on any future crimes the burglar may commit with the weapons he stole at the feet of the victim of the original burglary ???

 

[Sir_Knight]

College was a piece of cake. I can teach anyone to be a 4.0 student.

I took cost accounting over a summer class. We covered one chapter a day – meeting 2.5 hours each evening and during the day we had to read the chapter and do the problems at the end of the chapter. I pulled a B but the class made very little sense and shortly there after I switched my major.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I sincerely hope your home is never burgled. Many guns which are used in crimes first get in criminals’ hands due to residence burglaries.

If your car is stolen and used to rob a store, would you be charged as an accessory to the crime? If the person got into an accident with your stolen car and killed someone, should you be charged with murder?

 

[Lycorth]

I sincerely hope your home is never burgled. Many guns which are used in crimes first get in criminals’ hands due to residence burglaries.

And I have several friends who have lost guns in burglaries, in fact.

And many guns are used by homeowners to defend their homes during break-ins.

It is incumbent on the homeowner to see that firearms are safely stored and protected from thieves, and that what is used for home defense is easily accessible by the defenders.

A burglar can steal a kitchen knife or a wood ax as well. That would make no argument to ban knives and axes anymore than to ban firearms.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I don’t agree with you on this; I’ve seen women police officers take down the above described perp’s using judo. No guns used. Any citizen properly trained can, in many instances, take down a 300-pound criminal using various martial arts (judo, Karate, etc).

If the perp has a gun, it gonna come down to who’s quicker, aims better and fires off a round; you or him. And since he’s likely to be more prepared then you would be, he’d win hands down. Bigger/Stronger cannot force anyone to do their bidding if the opponent is determined not to.

Your examples here are full of holes; police officers are not required to be martial arts experts; 99% of all citizens are not trained in martial arts; 99% of all criminals are not trained in martial arts. So suggesting that this is a realistic alternative to being armed is simply not realistic.

With respect to being prepared - 99% of criminals don’t spend no time training in hand to hand personal combat, or confronting police, or target shooting etc. In fact most criminals definately lack these skills, but the police don’t. I’ve got a number of cop friends…they have substantial small arms training (pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.), some hand to hand combat skills, confrontation training and a lot of practical experience.

The notion that a 135 lb police officer (male or female) should attempt to whip up on a 300 pound criminal using martial arts is fantacy. No police officer in their right mind would want to take this risk. Police officers only engage in hand-to-hand when it is either forced on them or there is no other alternative. That’s why even the big male cops use tasers etc.

Your arguments here are simply off base.

Gob Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[StillWondering]

You know, this sounds silly but think of guns and comic books with super powers.

Why don’t we all have super powers like in X-men. Well, there would be crazy people that would cause great havoc. Same with guns I say. People who do not know how to use a gun, even with training, are very dangerous. I mean people who do not know that a gun is a tool used for good human purposes. But hey, we can say that with everything to one degree or another. Humans are dangerous enough if they do not know how to love each other. Why would you give them guns on top of it!

 

[mistypoint]

The bad and irresponsible all have access to guns now, don’t have training and don’t care about the law. Making it difficult for law abiding and responsible people to get guns or carry permits simply doesn’t make sense.

Best,

Iowa Mike

Exactly!!! Criminals will do as they please, without regard to the laws of the land.
A famous saying goes, “If you make having a gun criminal, only criminals will have guns.” Yes, you say, that is a true statement.

 

[mistypoint]

The fact that firearms are designed to kill does not magically impute unto them evil intent. Killing is an amoral act; the reasons for the killing impute moral character to the act.

My example stands. You were not arguing that guns are evil because they were designed to kill, rather that since a certain number of murders can be attributed to (the misuse) of guns, that guns should be banned. Changing gears will not salvage an untenable argument.

The arguments against gun control have been irrefutably presented. The “statistics” you have provided are false and I pointed out a glaring inconsistency in the link you offered. There is not now and never has been a single credible study done to prove that the mere availability of firearms causes normally law-abiding humans to magically turn into gun-crazed killers. Not one. To the contrary, the facts are that human beings commit crimes, whether they choose guns or anything else, and it is human behavior that must be controlled and criminals that must be banned, not coddled and catered to.

The reason gun crime is so high in some parts of the US is because of thug culture and thug mentality - driven by thugs themselves. That is what must be cracked down upon.

Of course, I can hear the bleating now: it’s a matter of freedom of speech to promote gangsta culture and thuggishness! No, it isn’t. When one uses freedom to cause harm or incite immorality, one loses one’s “rights” to “free speech”. On the contrary, gun bans are blatantly illegal, as per the same American constitution the free speech fanatics use to justify gangsta culture.

This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that at the heart of the gun control mania on the Left there lies a deliberate and sinister ploy to disarm Americans. Sorry, but I will not participate in being rendered helpless.

Shew! Glad you’re on my side!

I have to say, I have a CCW and carry within the laws of my state. We live in a rural area, similar to the 8 people killed in Virginia. Without protection, someone could have me vacuum packed in my own freezer before law enforcement could arrive. I’m not willing to give up my right to protect myself. That does not mean I will discharge my firearm randomly or recklessly. I am well aware of the distance a bullet will travel, and that an innocent person could very well be at the end of that trajectory. However, I am not willing to go down to rape or murder without a fight. Bottom line.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

And many guns are used by homeowners to defend their homes during break-ins.

Actually, a home is much more likely to get burgled. Thieves break in when they know no one is home. Guns are rarely used for home defense. Actually, a dog is better. A dog will alert a person to an attempted entry before it happens.

It is incumbent on the homeowner to see that firearms are safely stored and protected from thieves, and that what is used for home defense is easily accessible by the defenders.

A burglar can steal a kitchen knife or a wood ax as well. That would make no argument to ban knives and axes anymore than to ban firearms.

No one said anything about banning guns. However, you mention storage laws (or trigger lock laws) to ‘gun organizations’ and they have a fit, waving around the second amendment.

And that of course excuses the burglar and lays the blame on any future crimes the burglar may commit with the weapons he stole at the feet of the victim of the original burglary ?

You know, I stated a fact and did not blame anyone. There is a moral requirement for a person to secure a dangerous instrumentality – like putting a fence around a swimming pool. In the county where I live, 20 years ago the county president had guns stolen from his home. These are not isolated incidents.

 

[TheWalsh]

Our Lord knew that Peter carried a dagger, against the unjust Roman law that prohibited weapons to Jewish subjects. The right to defend oneself is of natural law. The ancients, such as Aristotle, recognized that man, although bereft of fang or claw, could bring to hand such means of defense as his mind could invent. The disarming of law-abiding citizens by the state is tantamount to pulling the teeth or talons from the beasts, and returning them defenseless to the jungle. Should we be forced to carry revolvers and such? I think that would be another infringement upon liberty. However, a word of concern. Should everyone in a nation eschew proficiency in arms, that nation would not long survive. Saint Thomas More from Utopia: “Nevertheless, men and women alike assiduously exercise themselves in military training on fixed days lest they should be unfit for war when need requires.” As long as sin abounds, and Cain stalks about with free will, self-defense, and national defense, will be a “Right to Life” issue.

 

[greggy53]

You know, I stated a fact and did not blame anyone. There is a moral requirement for a person to secure a dangerous instrumentality – like putting a fence around a swimming pool. In the county where I live, 20 years ago the county president had guns stolen from his home. These are not isolated incidents.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. A fence around a swimming pool is a necessary measure to prevent the death of an innocent child who may wander by. A burglar is not an innocent passerby. A better comparison would be a locked gun cabinet to prevent a child from accessing the guns. Yet none of this has anything to do with thieves that break into homes. You make it sound like a gun owner has some special moral requirement to prevent the theft of his guns, by comparing it to the moral obligation he does have to keep the guns away from children. If a thief breaks into my gun cabinet and shoots someone with one of my guns I am not at fault. The gun is not at fault. The person who broke into and stole the gun is at fault.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

You make it sound like a gun owner has some special moral requirement to prevent the theft of his guns, by comparing it to the moral obligation he does have to keep the guns away from children.

Maybe one does. Like a scientist working with a bad bacterium – he needs to keep that safe from theft.

If a thief breaks into my gun cabinet and shoots someone with one of my guns I am not at fault. The gun is not at fault. The person who broke into and stole the gun is at fault.

Yes, that’s where the fault lies. But the fact is that home thefts account for many of the illegally-used guns in our society. People sometimes try to ignore that fact.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

They did a pretty good job of conquering large parts of China and SE Asia.

The Japanese were able to massacre vast numbers of Chinese because the Chinese and other groups were unarmed. If they had had one personal weapon per person, the Japanese would have been massacred.