Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[Benedictus]

It would be a massive task and likely political suicide to attempt to curtail guns outright. The culture and mindset, at least currently, just isn't at that point of reasoning. I doubt many politicians in the US want an outright ban, although many would want stricter regulation and safeguards. I support stronger regulation and the removal of certain weapons from the market. But even the prospect of this isn't going to be an easy task. There are simply lots of influential stakeholders who will make things difficult, from a financial and political perspective. 

[Anomaly]

46 minutes ago, Anselm said:

It's not naive nor idealistically stupid to believe that the number of guns in circulation in any country could be reduced. Many deaths simply wouldn't happen if the people in question didn't have ready access to guns. Yes, if someone is determined to kill (including suicide) then they will find a way, but it would dramatically cut the number of deaths that occur because a gun is close at hand. The situations in which someone simply loses their temper would end in death in a fraction of the current number, as they would be reduced to a punch or something similar. 

Just look at at very nearly any other country in the world. Numbers of gun deaths are infinitesimally small by comparison. I'm shocked that an ostensibly Christian website should have so many contributors advocating lethal force.

It's stupid (and not idealistically)  to think, when there are already 300,000,000 guns, you are going to get them out of the hands of criminals.  You will only disarm the sane law abiders    Let's say that is 95% effective. Then who has the other 15,000,000 (fifteen million) guns?

Is it about saving lives, or about removing guns?   There are more lives lost for other reasons, than are lost to gun availablity.    More lives can be saved pursuing other causes of death.   Why don't those lives matter to you?    Why would you run to a burning car with two people in it before a burning bus with sixty people?  Especially since the car is farther away and in a pool of gas?

Other countries do not have the history or circumstances of the US.   You aren't starting with hundreds of millions of guns.   

[Anselm]

Then why not leave them in the hands of the police but not private citizens? Far more people are killed by private citizens owning guns than are saved. Strict gun laws do not necessarily include disarming the police. Equally, American policemen need a massive amount more training and regulation on when and how they use their guns. The numbers shot unnecessarily by American policemen is horrific.

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Anselm said:

Then why not leave them in the hands of the police but not private citizens? Far more people are killed by private citizens owning guns than are saved. Strict gun laws do not necessarily include disarming the police. Equally, American policemen need a massive amount more training and regulation on when and how they use their guns. The numbers shot unnecessarily by American policemen is horrific.

Why not break into my house put your boot on my neck and take my gun yourself as well as millions of other Americans? Rather than hide behind government to abuse my liberty on your behalf.

[Anomaly]

Youre missing key points.  Try to apply a bit of dispassionate and critical thinking. 

 I am only talking about private citizen arms, not police arms.  

This is the USA, not UK. It was easy for your gov to confiscate arms since the ruling class kept the masses as weaponless as possible for centuries as part of your culture.   

The US Is a vast country with a lot of violent people committing crimes.  You don't solve a crime problem by simply outlawing guns.   It didn't work with alcohol, nor is it working with drugs.  

 If it's about saving lives, there are more lives to be saved pursuing other goals than ill conceived, illogical, and misguided emotion based endeavors.   

As a UK citizen and resident, you have the equivalent depth of knowledge about guns in America as an average US citizen has about Brexit. Worse, you're letting anti-gun bigotry color your opinion with simplistic naïveté.  

[Anselm]

Anti-gun bigotry? I see...

[KnightofChrist]

18 minutes ago, Anselm said:

Anti-gun bigotry? I see...

Sure, and why not call it bigotry? You want to strip people of their liberties. Perhaps it would be easier for you to see if someone was arguing in favor of banning or severely limiting a right you approve. The right to religion for example. It would be easy to make a similar argument against religion that people make against guns. Guns are used to kill people, religion is used to kill people. Banning guns and religion or severely limiting the use of both would save so many lives. Don't you want to save lives? I know you haven't used your religion to kill anyone, just like many gun owners have never used their guns to kill anyone, but that doesn't matter. Others have used both religion and guns to kill many innocent people and therefor the rights to religion and guns should be severely limited if not out right banned. Only the government should be allowed to have them.

[Anselm]

The difference is that one is expressly designed to kill. I simply cannot reconcile Christianity with a right to own firearms.

To use an old cliche, what would Jesus do?

[Anomaly]

19 minutes ago, Anselm said:

I simply cannot reconcile Christianity with a right to own firearms.

Lol. 

Fine. Than don't own a gun.  Ask the Pope to issue an Ex-Cathedra statement and get the other Catholics to toe the line. 

Catholics here have given plenty of evidence that gun ownership isn't against Catholicism and Christian theology.  Without anything backing you up, you're just spewing bias without listening to or addressing disagreement.  Bigotry.  

Edited August 4, 2016 by Anomaly

[Anselm]

How about Mt 26:52-54? 

 

[Anomaly]

2 minutes ago, Anselm said:

How about Mt 26:52-54? 

 

Perfect.   Jesus specifically told him he's got angels to defend him. 

Luke 22:36. Sell your garments and buy a sword.  

Its not owning a weapon, but it's appropriate use. 

[Amppax]

Ah proof-texting, that venerable Phatmass tradition. 

[Anselm]

Put that passage from Luke into context; it's in fulfilment of a prophecy. Jesus doesn't demand that they all get weapons, since when he's told that there are two to hand he says that that's enough. It clearly wouldn't be enough to deems thirteen people against a violent mob but is enough to fulfil the prophecy. In the first quotation, however, Jesus explicitly says that 'all those who take up the sword will die by the sword.'

Guns are specifically designed to kill. There is no theological justification for private citizens to own them, particularly when the justification appears to be not through need, but simply by right.

[Anomaly]

6 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Ah proof-texting, that venerable Phatmass tradition. 

    

[Ice_nine]

bigotry? Lol calm down. I generally lean libertarian and think people should be able to own guns but dang. Anselm seems like a nice dude/gal who wants to see the murder rate drop. Whether you disagree with his/her method of achieving that, maybe tone down the rhetoric?

3 minutes ago, Anselm said:

Put that passage from Luke into context; it's in fulfilment of a prophecy. Jesus doesn't demand that they all get weapons, since when he's told that there are two to hand he says that that's enough. It clearly wouldn't be enough to deems thirteen people against a violent mob but is enough to fulfil the prophecy. In the first quotation, however, Jesus explicitly says that 'all those who take up the sword will die by the sword.'

Guns are specifically designed to kill. There is no theological justification for private citizens to own them, particularly when the justification appears to be not through need, but simply by right.

IDK, if some guy tries to rape me it would be no contest but I might have a fighting chance if I have a weapon that could level the playing field. Or he could take the gun from me by force and use it against me.

Life is cray guys.