 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
graygirl
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 4/29/2003 6:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | could someone that is pro-conceal & carry plz explain this position?
i'm just trying to understand.....and i don't get why people would be SO passionate, SO furiously supportive of getting more guns into people's hands. I just don't get it.
would love to hear thoughts
gg
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/29/2003 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't get it either.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/29/2003 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/29/2003 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Graygirl and Electra:quote:
i'm just trying to understand.....and i don't get why people would be SO passionate, SO furiously supportive of getting more guns into people's hands. I just don't get it.
We just want more people to die of gun-related accidents. Especially small children, of course. I mean, what else could we possibly want?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 4/29/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | That's definitely a tough one gg....
Several years ago, I had to debate the "pro" side of the issue for an ethics class. We were only allowed to use government provided statistics as fuel for the fire. The panel I was on found that we could easily make the statistics bend towards either side, using different methods of analysis. The overwhelming sense we had after the research was not just about the access to guns or whether or not conceal and carry prevents crime, but, that, a staggering number of people die from hand guns in the US comparatively to most of the rest of the world.
I honestly don't get it either. However, I think Michael Moore, while certainly not unbiased in his "documentary" "Bowling for Columbine" made a concerted attempt to actualize the nature of fear-driven violence in America. While I don't think more access to carry weapons is a good thing, I think there is a culture of violence in this country that allows for murder as a problem-solving tool.
I'm a pacifist till death, so really don't regard this as an acceptance of the policy approved here in Minnesota, but I barely had a response when I heard the news this morning. I just felt like it was inevitable.
†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/29/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't think I qualify as "pro-conceal" much less "pro-guns" personally, but the way I understand it is that the concealed weapon permit is a way for the government to exert more control over those who wish to carry concealed weapons, as in order to receive such a permit one has to undergo pretty a rigorous background check. In other words, not just anybody can get one of these permits. As to people carrying nonconcealed weapons, I honestly think that would greatly increase the degree of tension in society in general.
It seems to me that those who are for concealed weapons view them as a protective measure against criminals, not a "pro-violence" measure. It seems to me that since we have lots of guns in our society we have to attempt to control their use somehow.
It is also true that people can own guns anyway in our country, (per the Constitution's Bill of Rights) they just can't carry them concealed without a permit and so this is merely making the ownership and use of guns more controlled, not less. As to the worry by some that the concealed weapon permit will bring more guns and more violence into our society, that clearly does not follow, as we already have the right to own guns in America.
I sincerely doubt that concealed weapon permit owners would be more inclined to selling guns illegally than gun owners generally. Selling guns illegally can get you killed in this country. Take Ruby Ridge, for example.
Now if we really want to make America a more dangerous and violent place, make owning guns illegal; then only the criminals and law enforcement will own them, and private citizens will be at the mercy of the criminals. There simply are not enough cops to protect everyone all the time.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/30/2003 08:29:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/29/2003 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | My view is that Mutually-Assured Destruction works. When you are convinced that to attack someone means that you will be attacked back with equal or greater force then you are much less likely to attack in the first place. This is basic "prisoner's dilemma" game theory. This is why North Korea just announced that they have nuclear weapons (whether they do or not). Having nuclear weapons is a MAJOR deterrent to anyone attacking you. In Switzerland it is a requirement that each household has a gun and that they are trained to use it. This is a major deterrent to attacking someone in their home. It is also a major deterrent to any would be occupier of Switzerland. If the Iraqi people decided they wanted the US out then we would not stand a chance (my understanding is that they have lots of guns everywhere in Iraq).
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/29/2003 6:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: My view is that Mutually-Assured Destruction works.
Electra: I guess that depends on what your criteria are for what “works.” It works for those who have the will and the means to wield the biggest weapons. It works against those who are unwilling or unable to invest their resources in increasing their capacity for destruction. And, MAD works against everyone if—when—anyone actually acts on their capacity for destruction. Destructive potential seems like an upside-down standard for what works.
Order based on fear creates at least as many problems (e.g. arms race, proliferation of weapons) as it solves. It compels people to seek security in destructive rather that creative sources. Christians are citizens of a kingdom in which order is based on love. This means that instead of settling for what the world says works, we should be the ones breaking this destructive cycle of escalating threat by laying down our weapons. Fear “works” by threatening to inflict harsh and dreadful things on others. But Love in action risks taking harsh and dreadful things on itself. There is no fear in love.
When MAD is the status quo, the truly powerful ones are those who are not deterred by the prospect of their own destruction.
Peace,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/29/2003 11:08:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 4/29/2003 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
My view is that Mutually-Assured Destruction works. When you are convinced that to attack someone means that you will be attacked back with equal or greater force then you are much less likely to attack in the first place. This is basic "prisoner's dilemma" game theory. This is why North Korea just announced that they have nuclear weapons (whether they do or not). Having nuclear weapons is a MAJOR deterrent to anyone attacking you. In Switzerland it is a requirement that each household has a gun and that they are trained to use it. This is a major deterrent to attacking someone in their home. It is also a major deterrent to any would be occupier of Switzerland. If the Iraqi people decided they wanted the US out then we would not stand a chance (my understanding is that they have lots of guns everywhere in Iraq). -Iconoclast
Seems rather futile to me. This is a conceal and carry law. There's very little that seems intimidating to me about the average person on the street when I have no idea whether or not they are carrying a weapon. If it was a reveal and carry law, I might feel more threatened as a potential perpatrator of a crime to actually see and know that someone has a weapon. Otherwise, why would one feel deterred when, as the local news reported, it is estimated that 90,000 people will take advantage of the permit in the next three years. That's 1.8% of Minnesota's population. Would anyone really be deterred by a 1.8% chance that the person they are attacking is licensed to carry a weapon?
I think that deterrance, in reference to this bill is not a viable starting point for discussing the merits of the law passed in Minnesota. It's a similar issue as the death penalty, which has not shown to be an effective deterant for violent crime. The law provides a sense of security to those carrying the guns and that is the reason the law was passed. Fear Control, not Gun Control?
†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/30/2003 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | honorman: quote:
Actually, Brett, your ridiculing of the issue aside, there are many who believe that (as shown in the Constitution) owning guns is a fundamental right and when you restrict that fundamental right it only is the beginning...you may not agree with those on the opposite side and I, personally, do not own a gun. But the people I know who do own them I trust. These include many with children....btw, did you know the leading cause of accidents in the household is slipping in the bathtub? Perhaps we should outlaw that as well...
Whoa there, partner. I am a gun supporter! My sarcasm was directed at those who make simplistic arguments about guns only serving to kill innocent kids.
honorman: quote:
As always, it is best to read up on what you disagree with in order to fully understand what you, yourself, believe.
Hmmmm. In light of your misreading my first post, perhaps somebody else might need to read more fully? 
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/30/2003 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
My view is that Mutually-Assured Destruction works. When you are convinced that to attack someone means that you will be attacked back with equal or greater force then you are much less likely to attack in the first place. This is basic "prisoner's dilemma" game theory. This is why North Korea just announced that they have nuclear weapons (whether they do or not). Having nuclear weapons is a MAJOR deterrent to anyone attacking you. In Switzerland it is a requirement that each household has a gun and that they are trained to use it. This is a major deterrent to attacking someone in their home. It is also a major deterrent to any would be occupier of Switzerland. If the Iraqi people decided they wanted the US out then we would not stand a chance (my understanding is that they have lots of guns everywhere in Iraq).
thanks,
Iconoclast
Well said, Iconoclast. In an imperfect world, MAD is an essential strategic doctrine.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/30/2003 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
My apology Brett. I completely read you wrong...sorry
No problem, bro. 
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/30/2003 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Electra: I agree we are citizens in a kingdom based on love. But that is an unrealized kingdom that is not here yet. Therefore, I believe we must live here both as Christians and as citizens of this world. As such, as long as it is not in violation of scripture, Christians must be prepared to make hard, pragmatic choices in order to ensure that both love and law can exist, that evil is restricted as much as possible and that the weak are protected. Again, I do not see anything wrong with a person carrying a weapon to protect or his family.
Honorman, thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that there is a sense in which the kingdom of God is not yet here, but there is also a sense in which the kingdom of God is already here. Christians are called to be agents of the "already" in the context of the "not yet." You are correct that this certainly involves making hard, pragmatic choices.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
gregw
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 47
| Posted 4/30/2003 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | graygirl,
Here is my simplistic take on this. The United States Constitution gives us as free people the right to own and bear arms.
Simple.
Greg Woodard
http://www.usfamily.net/web/gv.woodard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/30/2003 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast and Brett, I am confused about the merit of the MAD doctrine. Do you see the proliferation of weapons as the problem or the solution to national security issues?
Since the MAD doctrine depends on threat as a deterrant, how would you respond to fyodor’s questions about the relevance of this doctrine in relation to concealed weapons legislation, in which the capacity for destruction is not assured?
Brett, you suggest that MAD is an essential doctrine in an imperfect world. What might a doctrine that transforms, rather than reinforces, the pattern of this world (order based on fear vs. love) look like?
Peace,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/30/2003 2:26:37 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 4/30/2003 9:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Brett, you suggest that MAD is an essential doctrine in an imperfect world. What might a doctrine that transforms, rather than reinforces, the pattern of this world (order based on fear vs. love) look like?
Electra,
Shouldn't you be answering this question instead on asking it? Or am I reading you wrong?
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/30/2003 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
Brett, you suggest that MAD is an essential doctrine in an imperfect world. What might a doctrine that transforms, rather than reinforces, the pattern of this world (order based on fear vs. love) look like?
Electra,
Shouldn't you be answering this question instead on asking it? Or am I reading you wrong?
peace and love, don
I think this question is one Rom. 8 calls all believers to wrestle with. I posted my current stance earlier in the thread in my response to Iconoclast: Instead of creating order by threatening to inflict harsh and dreadful things on others, create order based on willingness to risk taking these things upon ourselves.
Osama bin Laden is an example of what willingness to take this risk can look like. So is Ghandi. Real power is found not in subscription to the status quo, but in those who are so full of hate they are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to destroy their enemies, or so full of love they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their enemies.
This is where the real war is fought—between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of God.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 04/30/2003 3:10:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/30/2003 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra: quote:
Osama bin Laden is an example of what willingness to take this risk can look like. So is Ghandi. Real power is found not in subscription to the status quo, but in those who are so full of hate they are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to destroy their enemies, or so full of love they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their enemies.
No one is denying that non-violent resistance can be effective, Electra. Of course it can be. But would you not agree that there is a time for Ghandi and a time for Eisenhower?
And by the way, if you are not a pacifist, as you have repeatedly stated, how is the above statement you made consistent?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/30/2003 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
peace and love, don I think this question is one Rom. 8 calls all believers to wrestle with. I posted my current stance earlier in the thread in my response to Iconoclast: Instead of creating order by threatening to inflict harsh and dreadful things on others, create order based on willingness to risk taking these things upon ourselves.
Osama bin Laden is an example of what willingness to take this risk can look like. So is Ghandi. Real power is found not in subscription to the status quo, but in those who are so full of hate they are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to destroy their enemies, or so full of love they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their enemies.
I think it is quite unfair to characterize gun owners as somehow similar to Osama bin Laden, if that is in fact what you are doing. That there is a substantial difference between a terrorist and a law-abiding U.S. citizen would seem obvious.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 04/30/2003 9:19:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/30/2003 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I think it is quite unfair to characterize gun owners as somehow similar to Osama bin Laden, if that is in fact what you are doing.
That’s not what I was doing.
quote:
That there is a substantial difference between a terrorist and a law-abiding U.S. citizen would seem obvious.
I agree.
I’m obviously speaking too cryptically (a habit that often gets me in trouble). I will try to clarify when I get a chance, and be more clear in general.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/30/2003 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Brett
No one is denying that non-violent resistance can be effective, Electra. Of course it can be. But would you not agree that there is a time for Ghandi and a time for Eisenhower?
Iconoclast
Good point Brett. Even Ghandi said that the state must put down Criminal Disobedience else the state will break down and anarchy will result (which means more violence). This is why Ghandi was so focused on using ONLY Civil Disobedience. He agreed that it is appropriate for the state to use force to stop Criminal Disobedience. Our government is OUR government. We the people establish it and, in fact, UPHOLD it. The constitutional right to bear arms is an acknowledgement of this fact. In essence we the people are ultimately responsible to put down Criminal Disobedience. If we see someone hurting another we have a responsibility to stop them. Being trained in the appropriate use of force and being armed is very helpful in discharging this responsibility in extreme circumstances.
If 2% of Minnesotans choose to conceal and carry then on average out of every 50 people 1 person is armed and therefore able to be more effective in stopping extreme Criminal Disobedience.
Also, this means that in any group of 25 people there is a 50% chance that someone is armed. In a group of 10 people there is a 20% chance of someone being armed. I think this changes the calculations of those who would go on violent rampages or try to rob a bank at gun point.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/30/2003 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
Iconoclast and Brett, I am confused about the merit of the MAD doctrine. Do you see the proliferation of weapons as the problem or the solution to national security issues?
Iconoclast
The issue is balance of power. If the criminal has significantly more power (low odds of negative consequences) then we know what the result is. If the responsible party has significantly more power then that is good. The only problem with the responsible party having TOTAL power is that the responsible party may choose to become irresponsible and then we are back to the criminal having significantly more power.
Electra
Since the MAD doctrine depends on threat as a deterrant, how would you respond to fyodor’s questions about the relevance of this doctrine in relation to concealed weapons legislation, in which the capacity for destruction is not assured?
Iconoclast
It is all about the odds - the balance of power. Anything that shifts more power to the responsible party without encouraging the responsible party to become irresponsible increases the deterrant. It is all in the derivative, the slope of the curve. Small course corrections can have large impacts. We live in a complex adaptive system where chaos theory reigns and small inputs can have large effects over time.
Humans make predictive calculations using induction. Often we believe something to be true with very few cases to support it. If there are several widely publicized cases of normal citizens who are armed stopping criminals it can significantly change the criminals calculations of their odds of getting a severe consequence to their violent behavior.
The most fundamental force for changing behavior in a complex adaptive system is influencing the free agents as to the odds of getting positive or negative consequences for their behavior. It is an influence game.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/30/2003 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
Brett, you suggest that MAD is an essential doctrine in an imperfect world. What might a doctrine that transforms, rather than reinforces, the pattern of this world (order based on fear vs. love) look like?
Iconoclast
MAD is the first and essential part of a doctrine that transforms the world. To not stand up to evil first is to allow it to run rampant. Standing up to the Soviet Union was critical. The next part however is to NOT then take advantage of our power position but rather to use our power to help the other. I know that you agree that it is not helpful to not stand up against evil first. It is enabling. However, sometimes standing up to evil means violent resistance, sometimes it means non-violent resistance. It depends on what position you are in to begin with. Non-violent resistance against the nazis means that they would have killed many millions more.
Non-violent resistance to someone on a shooting rampage means that they will kill many people. If you could stop them through violent means but could not stop them through non-violent means why wouldn't you? Do you believe that it is always possible to stop criminal violence through non-violent means?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 5/4/2003 4:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast
quote:
MAD is the first and essential part of a doctrine that transforms the world. To not stand up to evil first is to allow it to run rampant.
Fyodor
I find this notion to be a rather defeatist stance. If my enemy has a slingshot, I need a slingshot. If my enemy has a bow and arrow, I need a bow and arrow. If my enemy has a gun, I need a gun, If my enemy has nukes, I need nukes. This is not a balanced approach to solving problems, it is an escalating level of potential destruction, until someone decides that risk is worth taking and we all mutually destruct. It seems like a keeping up with the Jones's mentality to crime prevention.
I don't find the sense in it. Please explain.
Iconoclast
quote:
If 2% of Minnesotans choose to conceal and carry then on average out of every 50 people 1 person is armed and therefore able to be more effective in stopping extreme Criminal Disobedience.
Also, this means that in any group of 25 people there is a 50% chance that someone is armed. In a group of 10 people there is a 20% chance of someone being armed. I think this changes the calculations of those who would go on violent rampages or try to rob a bank at gun point.
Fyodor
According to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, for the time period from 1985 to 1997, only 17% of murder victims were strangers to their assailants. The other 83% had some sort of relationship. Perhaps we should work on ascribing unsurpassing love on those we come in contact with and we can reduce our chances of being murdered by 83%.
In relation to your percentages, how often do you hear about a murder that occurred in a large group of people. It seems to me that murder usually happens when the assailant and the victim are the only ones present. Sure there is the occaisional rampage, but it would seem to me to be a very small number of cases. The percentage of possibility that a potential victim or witness has a concealed weapon gets smaller and smaller.
†††"One rarely finds an exposition of which it holds true that the exposition is that which is expounded" – S. Kierkegaard
Edited by - fyodor on 05/04/2003 9:54:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/4/2003 6:02 PM (GMT -6) | | fyodor
I find this notion to be a rather defeatist stance. If my enemy has a slingshot, I need a slingshot. If my enemy has a bow and arrow, I need a bow and arrow. If my enemy has a gun, I need a gun, If my enemy has nukes, I need nukes. This is not a balanced approach to solving problems, it is an escalating level of potential destruction, until someone decides that risk is worth taking and we all mutually destruct. It seems like a keeping up with the Jones's mentality to crime prevention.
I don't find the sense in it. Please explain.
Iconoclast
I assume that by “enemy” you mean either a violent criminal bent on your destruction, or a violent criminal nation bent on our destruction.
In either case the ideal scenario is to have much GREATER power that the one who is bent on your destruction. The moment the violent criminal gets greater power you will be destroyed.
In the case of the violent criminal we as a society have set ourselves up with much greater power than the violent criminal. We have an organized police force that can deliver overwhelming power against the violent criminal by simply calling 911. This is a good thing. It is not defeatist. It keeps the peace.
The violent criminals have guns. We have speed dial to an on-call, professionally-trained and well-organized police force.
In the case of Nazi Germany and their allies we did not have much greater power and they attacked. Fortunately we were able to fend them off. At this point we as a nation have greater power than any others. This is a strong deterrent.
The problem is that the violent criminal can still do some serious damage to individuals just like terrorists can do some serious damage to our country by slipping under our organized, and much more powerful, defensive system.
Now, should we find ways to further prevent the violent criminal from doing serious damage to individuals? Should we find ways to further prevent terrorists from doing serious damage to our country? To improve our defensive systems so fewer can slip under them?
I would assume that we would all agree that we should. I would guess that we would all agree that it is good to allow people to have security systems in our home. Do we all agree that it is good to allow people to have guns in their homes to protect their families?
fyodor
According to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, for the time period from 1985 to 1997, only 17% of murder victims were strangers to their assailants. The other 83% had some sort of relationship. Perhaps we should work on ascribing unsurpassing love on those we come in contact with and we can reduce our chances of being murdered by 83%.
Iconoclast
I agree with your prescription here. There is nothing more important than ascribing unsurpassing love to all those we come in contact with. But why isn’t it okay to also allow citizens the power to protect themselves?
If we behaved just like Jesus then those who felt loved by us probably wouldn’t want to kill us. However, it seems to me that Jesus’ loving action toward the Pharisees didn’t seem to engender warm feelings towards Him – quite the opposite.
Sometime ascribing love to another requires us to take a “stop action” on what they are doing. If you find your friend is embezzling I think it is loving to stop him. It might however get you killed. And if you saw your “friend” coming at you with a gun after he got out on bail to kill you and your family wouldn’t it be better to be armed than not armed? Now, perhaps you would argue that it is better to lay down your life for your friend in this case but what about your family? Is it better to lay down your family’s life for your friend or to protect your family’s life from your friend?
The Pharisees did not respond to Jesus’ love for them. A certain percentage of citizens will not respond to anything positive that society does and they will become violent criminals.
fyodor
In relation to your percentages, how often do you hear about a murder that occurred in a large group of people. It seems to me that murder usually happens when the assailant and the victim are the only ones present. Sure there is the occaisional rampage, but it would seem to me to be a very small number of cases. The percentage of possibility that a potential victim or witness has a concealed weapon gets smaller and smaller.
Iconoclast
I agree. My understanding is that there is no strong evidence that conceal and carry actually reduces crime. Nor is there strong evidence that it increases homicides or accidental firearm deaths.
So, why not allow it?
Why not allow greater freedom to protect oneself than less as long as it does not do greater harm?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
| 132 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|