Apotheoun Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1257898042' post='1999954'] I'm not a high school student, and I'm not here to be "taught," but rather, to discuss. Neither am I hear to "teach" anyone, merely to discuss. [/quote] I didn't say that [i]you[/i] were a high school student, nor do I claim to be teaching [i]you[/i] anything. I simply added a postscript to my post in connection with hypothetical scenarios. But as you have already stated, our discussion is concluded. Edited November 11, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1257898188' post='1999955']But as you have already stated, our discussion is concluded. [/quote] Yes. And thank you for the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='10 November 2009 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1257894117' post='1999882'] Owning guns isn't going to be effective in any of those areas. All it's going to do is make it easier for one person to harm another. Did Virginia Tech (not to mention all the other shootings, including the most recent) teach you guys nothing? [/quote] Yeah, it taught me that I should carry a gun more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Just to reiterate a few previous posts from this long thread, as my final word in this discussion: [quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1257882570' post='1999690']There is, on the one hand, the eschatological ideal of the Gospel that calls us to celibacy. And there is, on the other hand, the fact that if everyone were celibate, there would no longer be any humans. Similarly, the Gospel is an eschatological vocation to non-violence and martyrdom; but the kingdoms of this world probably cannot exist without some violence. So, I don't think St. Paul tries to reconcile the Gospel with this world. I think he recognizes an ultimately irreconcileable tension between them, and thus he permits things like marriage and violence in this world as a sort of concession to human weakness and necessity. But I think he upholds the eschatological ideal as the norm for Christians, and he stresses the radical distinction between the Gospel and this world. Insofar as we live for this world, then we are failing to follow the eschatological ideal of the Gospel; and this may sometimes be a necessary failure, which is why we pray constantly for mercy.[/quote] [quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1257880739' post='1999662']I believe that the eschatological ideal as witnessed in the life of the Apostles is clear that non-violence is essential to the Gospel vocation. Insofar as we have recourse to violent self-defense, I believe that it must be done in the name of this world, and never done in the name of the Gospel. And even when done in the name of this world, I believe that violence is a very dangerous matter that must be handled prudently and with great restraint.[/quote] [quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1257891621' post='1999849'] I honestly don't have all the answers. To defend my own life, I would not want to use violence. But to defend the lives of others, I might use violence. And even when it comes to the lives of others, I would have to consider other factors (e.g., I would not kill the innocent to save the innocent). As I said in a previous post, I recognize the complexity in all of these issues. I certainly don't want to come across as though I have all the answers. But, my main point is that I do not believe that the Gospel should be used to justify violence, because the Gospel vocation is eschatological, not of this world; if recourse to violence is going to be justified, then I believe it must be justified for this-worldly reasons, not for Gospel reasons. I also do not believe that violence should be used to spread or defend the Gospel. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aalpha1989 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1257898792' post='1999959'] Yeah, it taught me that I should carry a gun more often. [/quote] No kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) Bad people have easy access to guns so good people need easy access to guns so that when the bad people use their guns to shoot the good people the good people can use their guns to shoot the bad people. Oh yeah, that totally makes sense. Recipe for disaster, dude. Edited November 11, 2009 by OraProMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='10 November 2009 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1257900492' post='1999970'] Bad people have easy access to guns so good people need easy access to guns so that when the bad people use their guns to shoot the good people the good people can use their guns to shoot the bad people. Oh yeah, that totally makes sense. Recipe for disaster, dude. [/quote] Not that your argument isn't moot from a moral standpoint, but let's meet it on your pragmatic ground. Do you mean to say that if firearms were banned, only the police and military would have them? Like drugs? ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 theres no reason not to have a reasonable gun control. like needing a license to prove you can handle one, background check to make sure you arent a psychotic criminal, few days waiting list(do you really need a gun right now?) or restrictions on automatics and easily concealable weapons/handguns. we have all that in canada, but it hasnt stopped us from legally acquiring several guns. and if a semiautomatic 12 gauge wont stop an intruder, why the hell would a 9mm pistol be any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 November 2009 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1257901305' post='1999984'] Not that your argument isn't moot from a moral standpoint, but let's meet it on your pragmatic ground. Do you mean to say that if firearms were banned, only the police and military would have them? Like drugs? ~Sternhauser [/quote] No but the frequency of guns being used violently will decrease if fewer people have guns, obviously. In Australia (and other places) the law can prohibit someone with a criminal past from acquiring fire arms. The police can arrest any civillian carrying a gun around. Can that be done in America? I'm sorry but the idea that people have a "right" to own weapons just doesn't sit well with me. It's completely unthinkable to the Austalian mentality that civillians can go into a store and come out with a gun in their hand ten minutes later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' date='10 November 2009 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1257902462' post='2000000'] No but the frequency of guns being used violently will decrease if fewer people have guns, obviously.[/quote] That presumes that fewer people all across the spectrum have firearms. That is an illogical presumption. Fewer statute-abiding people would have firearms. You would get the same result as we got when they banned drugs. Drug "criminals" don't care. They have as many drugs as they want. [quote]In Australia (and other places) the law can prohibit someone with a criminal past from acquiring fire arms. The police can arrest any civillian carrying a gun around. Can that be done in America? [/quote] Why should people who want to own firearms be prohibited/strictly regulated in America? In Vermont (a State with a cultural homogeneity equal to Australia) any adult not convicted of certain crimes can carry a firearm, openly or concealed, as long as it is done without an "avowed purpose of harming a fellow man." They have one of the lowest murder rates out of all the 50 States, almost equal to that of Britain. While in Washington, D.C., the murder capital of the Big State, handguns are all but banned, even with U.S. vs. Heller. According to your logic, that is unlikely, if not impossible. [quote]I'm sorry but the idea that people have a "right" to own weapons just doesn't sit well with me. It's completely unthinkable to the Austalian mentality that civillians can go into a store and come out with a gun in their hand ten minutes later. [/quote] I'm sorry that you fear material things. I feel completely comfortable knowing my neighbors probably have firearms in their homes. I don't think they're going to harm me. How do you feel about people who can buy petrol, glass bottles, and then walk into any crowded place they want and kill dozens of people in seconds? Are you afraid of that, too? Killing is killing. It's easier to kill far more people that way, than with a firearm. ~Sternhauser Edited November 11, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='10 November 2009 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1257900492' post='1999970'] Bad people have easy access to guns so good people need easy access to guns so that when the bad people use their guns to shoot the good people the good people can use their guns to shoot the bad people. Oh yeah, that totally makes sense. Recipe for disaster, dude. [/quote] So how are you getting weapons out of bad guy's hands? It's also a recipe for protecting innocent people. I have firearms and I've paid my fee to reduce the government's infringement of my right to carry. With luck, I'll never have to use it because it's a pain in the butt when you shoot a bad guy. What is your solution? How many cops are you willing to hire to protect individual people? How much money are you willing to spend out of your paycheck to round up all the guns? And then how are you going to keep criminals from getting them? Since you would reduce my ability to protect myself, how are you going to make it up to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='10 November 2009 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1257902462' post='2000000'] No but the frequency of guns being used violently will decrease if fewer people have guns, obviously. In Australia (and other places) the law can prohibit someone with a criminal past from acquiring fire arms. The police can arrest any civillian carrying a gun around. Can that be done in America? I'm sorry but the idea that people have a "right" to own weapons just doesn't sit well with me. It's completely unthinkable to the Austalian mentality that civillians can go into a store and come out with a gun in their hand ten minutes later. [/quote] Well you don't live in America and it isn't one of your rights so I don't see where the hang up is really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Jesus_lol' date='10 November 2009 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1257901735' post='1999990'] theres no reason not to have a reasonable gun control. like needing a license to prove you can handle one, background check to make sure you arent a psychotic criminal, few days waiting list(do you really need a gun right now?) or restrictions on automatics and easily concealable weapons/handguns. we have all that in canada, but it hasnt stopped us from legally acquiring several guns. and if a semiautomatic 12 gauge wont stop an intruder, why the hell would a 9mm pistol be any better? [/quote] Different weapons for different purposes. Sidearms have a place and in close quarters, they're effective. Also, since it's no longer cricket to carry a long arm around, a pistol has to do. For some bizarre reason, the military still uses pistols, but let's pretend they're not needed for the sake of pc bullshinobi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1257903143' post='2000008'] Different weapons for different purposes. Sidearms have a place and in close quarters, they're effective. Also, since it's no longer cricket to carry a long arm around, a pistol has to do. For some bizarre reason, the military still uses pistols, but let's pretend they're not needed for the sake of pc bullshinobi. [/quote] It's legal in to carry around an AR-15 in many, many States. ~Sternhauser Edited November 11, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 November 2009 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1257903264' post='2000011'] It's legal in to carry around an AR-15 in many, many States. ~Sternhauser [/quote] But it's not cricket. It's legal here in the great state of Texas, but I wouldn't want the hassle of dealing with the fall out. Anywhere it's not illegal it's a violation of human rights and a violation of that rag all those deists signed a couple hundred years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now