Guest christopher3393 Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 LOL. Are you seriously suggesting that my response is off-topic? Or is this your second not very subtle suggestion that I shut up and go away? Please explain why. Is it because I strongly disagree with your view? Isn't that precisely what the Alley is for? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 LOL. Are you seriously suggesting that my response is off-topic? Or is this your second not very subtle suggestion that I shut up and go away? Please explain why. Is it because I strongly disagree with your view? Isn't that precisely what the Alley is for? All of the above Yes it seems to be going to religion now and how to win wars with non violent people. If it were possible and all those people were alive and we could have just sent all those people to Iraq we would see how long they and there non violent people would last without guns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
94Camaro Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 You wanna talk about Ghandi? Fine by me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarkins Posted April 26, 2007 Posted April 26, 2007 LOL. Are you seriously suggesting that my response is off-topic? Or is this your second not very subtle suggestion that I shut up and go away? Please explain why. Is it because I strongly disagree with your view? Isn't that precisely what the Alley is for? LOL I like you Christopher, it is nice to see some centrist opinion here. From my point of view it is a cultural issue. In Canada (or at least in Qu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted April 27, 2007 Posted April 27, 2007 since the death of logic many years ago... I'm not sure what goes thru people's minds. don't take the guns away. like others have said it's not going to stop criminals from breaking the law (what a shock). at the same time the law abiding citizen who is carrying, or could be carrying is often enough to make people rethink doing something stupid. put yourself in the criminals shoes. are you going to walk into a gas station and hold it up at gun point if there's a strong chance you'll get shot by someone else? or are you more likely to do it if you know for a fact you're the only one with a gun? I wonder.... next up is in the event you actually live thru a botched robbery that ends in homicide. jail or death. which weighs in as the more threatening of the two? better screening, tougher penalties, and better funded (for education and equipment) law enforcement is all we need. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
94Camaro Posted April 27, 2007 Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) http://www.cleveland.com/ap/stories/index....list=topstories Mr. Damon Wells, I applaud you. Here's to you. Edited April 27, 2007 by 94Camaro Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCC10281982B Posted April 27, 2007 Posted April 27, 2007 Well, its sad that the kid died. But, the guy does have right to defend himself and his property. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted April 27, 2007 Posted April 27, 2007 put yourself in the criminals shoes. are you going to walk into a gas station and hold it up at gun point if there's a strong chance you'll get shot by someone else? or are you more likely to do it if you know for a fact you're the only one with a gun? I wonder.... Thats a good point, but that will only stop the criminals who plan out these sorts of things. I dont know the statistics, but just throwing out an idea, what about crimes commited out of 'the moment?' Having more guns around would make that so much easier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest christopher3393 Posted April 27, 2007 Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) You wanna talk about Ghandi?Fine by me. “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” ~ Ghandi I'd love to know the source and context of the quote. How do you see this quote in relationship to Gandhi's position on non-violence, which I think you would have to agree is CLEARLY presented in hundreds of quotes taken IN context! Thomas Merton, a significant writer and religious thinker in his own right, published an entire book of Gandhi quotes on non-violence that is still in print. It is one of many books dedicated to Gandhi's many reflections on this topic. I really can't accept your response as intellectually honest. And it is precisely this kind of maneuver that I find most offensive in this thread. You dishonor Gandhi by representing him this way. bigred's reflection presents a position I can respect, even if I may disagree with it. It helps me to better understand and appreciate what he stands for , why he stands for it, and how he distinguishes his view from similar positions. It is helpful. As are several other comments. Road-runner: I get a clear sense that a pacifist perspective of almost any stripe is entirely foreign to your experience and worldview, and you feel very strongly about this. I respect that. But I cannot respect your seeming insistence that your view go unchallenged and that someone like, say, St. Francis of Assisi, a great Christian pacifist and founder of a movement that has brought charitable help to so many over centuries, would just be another stupid dead guy if he went to Iraq today. Do you imagine Jesus with a handgun? Edited April 27, 2007 by christopher3393 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
94Camaro Posted April 27, 2007 Posted April 27, 2007 How in the world do you suppose the British were able to control a population the size of that of India? Mainly because the people of India had no way to stand against the guns of the British. Guns allow the people to easily control a corrupted, oppressive government. And that's why our founding father's specifically mentioned the right of the people to bear arms. So we should always be able to rise against a government that has turned against it's people. I'm not going to go into more depth on this topic, as you can reference the VT thread for my other thoughts on the matter. I'd also suggest you watch the video I posted on the last page on that thread. Oh, and I'm sure if you do some research, you'll find that Ghandi didn't really oppose violence as much as he is portrayed. He opposed starting violence, but if violence was against him, he was in favor of standing and defending oneself. That's what I want. To be allowed to possess the tools to defend myself. If you're ok with being helpless or waiting on the police to respond in 20 minutes, that's fine with me. But don't take away my ability to protect myself and my family simply because you prefer to leave your life in someone else's hands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted April 27, 2007 Posted April 27, 2007 how about.... some facts? How does the US compare with other countries around the world? Accurate figures on firearms are scarce, but there are an estimated 200 million guns in circulation in the US, a country with a population of about 300 million. According to a Harris poll conducted in 2001, approximately 39% of all American households own at least one gun. The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report. There are no recent statistics available but UN figures from 2000 showed for every 10,000 Americans, 0.3 were killed by firearms, compared with 0.01 in the UK where handgun ownership was banned in 1997. In Switzerland where every man of military age is required to keep a gun at home as part of the country's civil defence policy, the number of deaths per 10,000 population was 0.05. In South Africa it was 7.1 for every 10,000 people. source: BBC News - Q&A: US campus killings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted April 27, 2007 Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) Road-runner: I get a clear sense that a pacifist perspective of almost any stripe is entirely foreign to your experience and worldview, and you feel very strongly about this. I respect that. But I cannot respect your seeming insistence that your view go unchallenged and that someone like, say, St. Francis of Assisi, a great Christian pacifist and founder of a movement that has brought charitable help to so many over centuries, would just be another stupid dead guy if he went to Iraq today. Do you imagine Jesus with a handgun? Well I do not mind the challenge. And I am not a religious person so none of that matters to me. If you are originally from the U.S. just imagine where you would be today if everyone in the U.S had been a pacifist. You may have still been on this continent but would you be free? I think not. If the people who go through the legal process of obtaining a concealed weapons permit so that they can carry a firearm concealed to protect themselves bothers you, then pack up your stuff and move to France. Because you've obviously lost touch with the concept of America and the freedom that our Constitution provides. Responsible people who go choose to go armed are not a problem. It's the people who have knee jerk reactions to any form of personal responsibility that are the problem. Especially when that responsibility involves firearms. "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." --Sigmund Freud, Edited April 27, 2007 by road-runner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now