It sounds like you need a new church.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
It sounds like you need a new church.
if I really said what I thought, I'd be excommunicated.
I've been to other churches in my younger days...
but I believe in the sacraments... so I have remained in the Catholic church. I hate the hypocrisy though. Have lost some friends and relatives because of my criticisms.
no regrets though.
its ironic that those who preach faith lack it.
The funny thing is, there is nothing about abortion or gays in the Gospels.
Directly No, but read and digest and its there!
I doubt it's enough to justify the time and effort that goes into moaning about those two things though.
There's plenty on stuff like peace and compassion and all that other stuff for christians to busy themselves with.
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Gandhi
Presumably you are taking the piss?
"Arms" in this context were military arms not the personal weapons of private individuals. The context of "depriving of the whole nation of arms" was the refusal of the British to conscript Indians into the British Army during the First World War. Gandhi was an extreme anti-militarist. The statement is odd coming out of him, but he used the circumstance for political purposes to advance the cause of Home Rule and Independence.
so whats new. rightes lost for ideas..so make shit up.
so whats new. rightes lost for ideas..so make shit up.
The most famous pacifist bar Jesus was for individual gun rights....nice try!
the core of Christ's teaching is about forgiveness and love.
he did not condemn.
all are redeemed.
the simple point is there are much more important issues to be concerned about like poverty...
My grandad was in the Imperial Camel Corp, and that had Indian soldiers in it, but I would think they were volunteers rather than conscripts. They killed a lot of Turks either way. Camels are vicious bastards apparently, although they are good at finding their own way home if necessary. Homing camels. Thank you, carry on.
The Imperial Camel Corp sounds fecking ace. Got any pics of him in it?
No, unfortunately. My mum died a few years ago and I turned the house upside down looking for photos of him in India, which she had promised me, but they had disappeared. They were of him in front of the Taj Mahal next to field gun taller than him, one of those first world war jobs with huge wooden paddles all round the wheels to stop them sinking in the ground.
My grandad served in India but he was in the Royal Engineers. I think my nan had a manservant that she liked though as me and my Dad have quite dark skin!
Pacifism and gun rights aren't mutually exclusive. Buddhist monks spend the vast majority of their time training their bodies to be effective killing machines but would you not call them pacifists?
I consider myself to be very much a pacifist, but I love martial arts, rugby, and swords. Guns aren't really my thing but I have no problem with people wanting to own them.
But you agree that your Ghandi quote was a load of shit in this context?
The most suitable word is mercenary.
Anybody seen this?
Yes, a more than fair word Vida. Most soldiers throughout history, and in every country, have fought either for money or because they were forced to, in the sense that the alternative for them would have been worse.
They are like them, only worse, banning only malt whiskey but still allowing wine and beer.
It is treating the symptom instead of working towards a cure.
Your arguments bring up irrelevant points like murder rates/shootings, when as you point out what is being discussed is banning semi autos and large clips, responsible for only 3% of the shootings. The rates will be barely affected.
The best this whole debate can do with your banning approach is limit the 3% relevant killings (More likely reduce their devastation they would still happen to some degree).
There are far more effective ways to tackle gun crime or crime in general.
Oh dear, what happens if a janitor loses it and ends up shooting someone?
I'm definitely a disarmament guy. The less people who have guns the lower the margin of error. You may be able to protect yourself with a gun but it doesn't make you any safer. It's like driving on the motorway, everyone has a car but it just takes one person to make a mistake or act recklessly and it can kill plenty of people even if they are protected by being in their own cars.
A world where everyone has nuclear weapons would be much less safer than a world with none. Because you have the ability to strike back it also means you have the ability to pre-emptively strike.
With guns it only takes one lose screw to take people out, with no guns one lose screw can harm fewer people.
I'm definitely a disarmament guy. The less people who have guns the lower the margin of error. You may be able to protect yourself with a gun but it doesn't make you any safer. It's like driving on the motorway, everyone has a car but it just takes one person to make a mistake or act recklessly and it can kill plenty of people even if they are protected by being in their own cars.
A world where everyone has nuclear weapons would be much less safer than a world with none. Because you have the ability to strike back it also means you have the ability to pre-emptively strike.
With guns it only takes one lose screw to take people out, with no guns one lose screw can harm fewer people.
The symptom is human behavior which isn't going to change any time soon. It is like thinking that the solution to knife crime is us no longer having opposable thumbs.
And restricting these sorts of weapons is just a start and in any case 3% of 11,000 is quite a few people. The ultimate goal is almost total elimination of guns in private hands thus saving almost all of those 11,000 lives per year but you have to start somewhere.
Restricting guns has vastly reduced gun deaths in the UK and Australia (from an already lower level than the US) and since knife crime occurs at a similar (slightly lesser) rate than in the US you can't really argue that restricting guns has resulted in increased knife crime.
And restricting these sorts of weapons is just a start and in any case 3% of 11,000 is quite a few people. The ultimate goal is almost total elimination of guns in private hands thus saving almost all of those 11,000 lives per year but you have to start somewhere.
Restricting guns has vastly reduced gun deaths in the UK and Australia (from an already lower level than the US) and since knife crime occurs at a similar (slightly lesser) rate than in the US you can't really argue that restricting guns has resulted in increased knife crime.
So the goal is like prohibition/war on drugs then?
So what happens when all the good guys, law abiding citizens give up the guns?
The criminals with all the guns run amok and low crime areas like home robberies would shoot up.
Your idea of eliminating guns from the streets is fanciful and naive.
You would stand a better chance of changing human behaviour.
Surely you do both? You treat the symptoms whilst you work on a cure. No point saying lets just leave it until we have a solution that is 100% going to sort it. If the law changes and even 1 less person dies per year then its 100% justified.
Really? without factoring in the time or money to pass laws and alternative laws that might safe 2 people?
When did we stop living in the real world?
So people should die over time and money? How would you feel if a family member was shot dead in an entirely preventable way but nothing was done about it because the politicians would have had to actually put some time and effort into doing their job.
That argument falls flat on its face imo. Also lets be truthful that a change in the law would most likely save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.
Your priests isn't a good problem solver as guns could be used to kill gays and abortion doctors.
I'm not sure what point you are making but I would be devastated obviously.
I am dealing in reality, what they are suggesting would not save that many lives. maybe 1% or 2%, and my point has never been bout doing nothing, jut not wasting time doing this.
Education and opportunity is the solution to this and many other problems. The focus should be there.
Inequality, and the crazy situation where drugs are battled against unless they are registered and hugely profitable.
Some of the legal drugs make people far more mentally unstable than any illegal product.
The problems are complex, high PR stunt like bills will not solve anything.
Ideally but realistically it should be more like the "war" on smoking rather than prohibition.
Fewer people die.
Would they? Really? If so why didn't this happen elsewhere when restrictive guns laws were introduced?
In any case change will be gradual which should reduce the availability of all guns as it has elsewhere.
Only in that so many Americans are addicted to guns and immune to gun deaths.
Rubbish. Look at how attitudes to things like smoking have been altered over a couple of decades by concerted efforts. Of course that would involve the US treating guns like the evil they are instead of glorifying them.
The main problem with your argument is we are talking about America.
I highly doubt criminals having guns and home/shop business owners not will mean less lives lost and certainly won't lower crime.
Gun culture is there, making it illegal won't change that but educating and providing alternatives opportunities for criminals would.
Violent crime has reduced significantly in the last 20 years, as more people have legally started carrying guns in public. How does that stack up?
Correlation is not causation. Better detection methods, higher rates of incarceration, global warming.
Do you really think criminals are not committing crimes because people might be armed? It's simply an occupational hazard for most criminals.
That's insane and I'm a pro-gun.
Attitudes can change but not even trying isn't the answer.
And reductions in crime relate to policing and other factors and has nothing to do with liberal gun laws.
UK and Australia are islands and US have Mexico on their border, will not work, criminals would be armed and even more dangerous.
Really, seems odd that a country where most home owners have guns burglary is relatively low compared to other crime.
Of course criminals prefer easy targets.
Do you have the stats for that?
You know this how exactly?
If it is true then to solve the crime problem you should turn further to the police. Tighter laws won't have effect either.
yes, around 700 in 100,000 in USA compared to 1100 in 100,000 UK according to the independent.
linky?