Gun rights - for or against?
- Thread starter LeonT
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hence my last point. Do you know how rare drop misfires are? Pistols produced since the 80's are equipped with not one, not two, but three drop safeties. ND's are becoming less and less common. Though I would argue that ND's are not a valid argument for common carrying. Mostly because ND's do not occur during the act of carrying itself.
The fantasy of some guy's pistol going off in his pants during a worship service is about as fanciful as a parking break spontaneously engaging on the highway or a blender turning on without being plugged in.
The two other scenarios are different in nature. An innocent person getting caught in the crossfire is exceedingly rare for multiple reasons mostly having to do with the mechanics of a shootout. I won't go into the gory details as to why unless you really want me to, but most of them have to do with the distance, mechanics, ballistics, and human behavior.
Now, it would be more of a factor if we're talking force on force (ie platoon on platoon) combat. But that isn't a scenario we are discussing outside the state of Montana (I make joke, hahaha).
The third and final con- the cowboy vigilante type- is a very real possibility. Some people do get the wrong idea of what it means to be an armed citizen despite parental training and 2A culture teaching them otherwise. It's inevitable.
But those people are rare in proportion to the percentage of drivers involved in road rage incidences or the number of people using prescription drugs who abuse them. Should we ban the common use of cars? Should we ban life-saving drugs? How about alcohol?
We don't, because we live in an imperfect world where where deadly trade offs exist and new ones present themselves with virtually every technological advancement. There are times when prudence calls for laws that limit or ban certain things, but prudence is not the same as perfection or sterility.
If I was largely correct in my approximation of your standard, then you have to admit it's a fairly weak standard to go by. One that reeks of the subjectivism you so ably demolished in previous misc forum discussion. It takes the very real gun and warps it into something that only exists in film.
How fair is it to take so weak a standard and paternalistically (or I suppose maternalistically) deploy it on an object people use to defend themselves and their families on a day to day basis?
The fantasy of some guy's pistol going off in his pants during a worship service is about as fanciful as a parking break spontaneously engaging on the highway or a blender turning on without being plugged in.
The two other scenarios are different in nature. An innocent person getting caught in the crossfire is exceedingly rare for multiple reasons mostly having to do with the mechanics of a shootout. I won't go into the gory details as to why unless you really want me to, but most of them have to do with the distance, mechanics, ballistics, and human behavior.
Now, it would be more of a factor if we're talking force on force (ie platoon on platoon) combat. But that isn't a scenario we are discussing outside the state of Montana (I make joke, hahaha).
The third and final con- the cowboy vigilante type- is a very real possibility. Some people do get the wrong idea of what it means to be an armed citizen despite parental training and 2A culture teaching them otherwise. It's inevitable.
But those people are rare in proportion to the percentage of drivers involved in road rage incidences or the number of people using prescription drugs who abuse them. Should we ban the common use of cars? Should we ban life-saving drugs? How about alcohol?
We don't, because we live in an imperfect world where where deadly trade offs exist and new ones present themselves with virtually every technological advancement. There are times when prudence calls for laws that limit or ban certain things, but prudence is not the same as perfection or sterility.
If I was largely correct in my approximation of your standard, then you have to admit it's a fairly weak standard to go by. One that reeks of the subjectivism you so ably demolished in previous misc forum discussion. It takes the very real gun and warps it into something that only exists in film.
How fair is it to take so weak a standard and paternalistically (or I suppose maternalistically) deploy it on an object people use to defend themselves and their families on a day to day basis?
G
I knew this was going to be a controversial point to bring up, but Zimmerman was on the phone with the police dispatcher, describing Martin. The dispatcher told him not to chase Martin. Zimmerman was not a police officer. He should have listened to the police dispatcher. He should not have gone after Martin. I mean, all Martin was doing was looking shady. That's it.
G
I want to address parts of your post. (1) the personal incident I witnessed of a pistol going off when dropped happened around 2001-2003. The pistol is a 1990s make. I assume the safety was not on, I know my mother had zero training.
(2) While cases of road rage CAN involve running someone off the road or over with the car as a weapon, the vast majority of road rage cases involves one hot head shooting a bad or an aggressive driver. There are cases where bad tempered people have shot others for minimal reasons, for example, the man who shot someone for texting during a film.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/us/road-rage-guns.html
(3) Cars, drugs, knives, saws, etc have other purposes. Guns have ONE purpose: shooting people (excluding hunting, I don't think anyone is going to hunt deer in church).
(2) While cases of road rage CAN involve running someone off the road or over with the car as a weapon, the vast majority of road rage cases involves one hot head shooting a bad or an aggressive driver. There are cases where bad tempered people have shot others for minimal reasons, for example, the man who shot someone for texting during a film.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/us/road-rage-guns.html
(3) Cars, drugs, knives, saws, etc have other purposes. Guns have ONE purpose: shooting people (excluding hunting, I don't think anyone is going to hunt deer in church).
G
"That's right! They are for protecting those in the church house from the three guys - each holding an AK-47 - who just came through the church house doors with intent to rob, rape, or kill..." 
( And, in this scenario -- the three guys are hardened criminals who get their weapons from the black market... )
Now -- at that moment - what type of weapon would you hope the church member(s) would be carrying? :
1) A single shot 22 derringer
2) A revolver with a six-round cylinder
3) A pistol with a nine-round clip
4) An AK-47 with a 30-round clip
5) A bazooka
( "Okay, let's be reasonable -- a bazooka is a bit much..." )
( The point I am trying to make is a serious one; the rest is intended to be humorous. )
( And, in this scenario -- the three guys are hardened criminals who get their weapons from the black market... )
Now -- at that moment - what type of weapon would you hope the church member(s) would be carrying? :
1) A single shot 22 derringer
2) A revolver with a six-round cylinder
3) A pistol with a nine-round clip
4) An AK-47 with a 30-round clip
5) A bazooka
( "Okay, let's be reasonable -- a bazooka is a bit much..." )
( The point I am trying to make is a serious one; the rest is intended to be humorous. )
G
"That's right! They are for protecting those in the church house from the three guys - each holding an AK-47 - who just came through the church house doors with intent to rob, rape, or kill..."
( And, in this scenario -- the three guys are hardened criminals who get their weapons from the black market... )
Now -- at that moment - what type of weapon would you hope the church member(s) would be carrying? :
1) A single shot 22 derringer
2) A revolver with a six-round cylinder
3) A pistol with a nine-round clip
4) An AK-47 with a 30-round clip
5) A bazooka
( "Okay, let's be reasonable -- a bazooka is a bit much..." )
( The point I am trying to make is a serious one; the rest is intended to be humorous. )
( And, in this scenario -- the three guys are hardened criminals who get their weapons from the black market... )
Now -- at that moment - what type of weapon would you hope the church member(s) would be carrying? :
1) A single shot 22 derringer
2) A revolver with a six-round cylinder
3) A pistol with a nine-round clip
4) An AK-47 with a 30-round clip
5) A bazooka
( "Okay, let's be reasonable -- a bazooka is a bit much..." )
( The point I am trying to make is a serious one; the rest is intended to be humorous. )
I'm not suggesting that the people in South Carolina were not praying or that God ignored their prayers. They were and He didn't.
I just think that a more likely scenario is someone getting accidentally shot by a person inside the church than gunmen storming the church.
I don't want to live my life in fear of what may possibly transpire.
Just read an article where a disabled old woman in a wheelchair was able to scare off two men who were breaking into her home because when they saw she had a gun. That to me is a prime example of why folks should be allowed to own them.
And here it is...
Woman in wheelchair scares off burglars by showing gun | fox8.com
And here it is...
Woman in wheelchair scares off burglars by showing gun | fox8.com
Last edited:
G
I don't guess there is much of a reason to argue over what happened. It was tragic. I don't think what happened to Zimmerman warranted Martin getting shot. A hefty man versus a skinny kid is not a fair fight, and they probably would not have even made contact at all if Zimmerman would have listened to the dispatcher and met the police car at the mailbox.
My opinion of zimmerman is that he was a cop wannabe looking for some attention. That's why he got fired from previous security guard jobs and why he was playing stakeout in that neighborhood... just waiting for someone to come along so he could play cop. That's also why he called 911, because he wanted to feel "official" because he's in communicae with the real cops while it was happening..
Here's proof that zimmerman has no remorse. He actually calls himself the victim...
George Zimmerman Doesn't Feel Guilty, Does Feel Victimized
Here;s another article where Trayvons dad says zimmerman shows no remorse:
Trayvon dad tells friend Zimmerman shows no remorse | HLNtv.com
And here he is signing autographs at a gun show and stumbles through questions about remorse
Zimmerman Signs Autographs at Gun Show, Stumbles Through Questions About Remorse
George Zimmerman Doesn't Feel Guilty, Does Feel Victimized
Here;s another article where Trayvons dad says zimmerman shows no remorse:
Trayvon dad tells friend Zimmerman shows no remorse | HLNtv.com
And here he is signing autographs at a gun show and stumbles through questions about remorse
Zimmerman Signs Autographs at Gun Show, Stumbles Through Questions About Remorse