Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 10,401-10,450 of 12,463

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "10476

You have a lot of questions here. Am I supposed to get all of them or was there a specific one?

10484

Were the lives of the mom in Oklahoma as valuable as the kids at Sandy ..."

10476

I am pro-choic
I am for universal healthcare
I am for same sex marriage
I am for people to be able to legally own guns to defend themselves.
I've said all along I don't like guns, but that that is not the same as taking them away from everyone as they are a nessicary evil.
I have explained it.

She had the right to defend herself anyway she could.
The value of life is is a subjective thing, so I can't really give you a very solid answer. It's all based on personal feelings.

My mom has value, your mom: I barely know you,let alone her so there's some vague idea she maters to you, this mom in oklahoma you've used as a repeated over and over until she feels like an anecdote. Hypothetically, she should have value, but you keep killing her and bringing her back so many times she doesn't feel real to me by this point.

I am also in favor of a rape-free world.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "10504
Again, you are rambling. Do I answer all of them or is there a certain one?

10542

Hate to repeat myself, but do I answer all of them? When you get going a lot of them seem rh..."

Do you want numerous scenarios about how I would imagine this mom defending herself or should I just repeat that I've never said you shouldn't be allowed guns for defense, and that if you are legally entitled to a gun, then get all the assault weapons you need for defense?
Or all the defense weapons you need for assault.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "10504
Again, you are rambling. Do I answer all of them or is there a certain one?

10542

Hate to repeat myself, but do I answer all of them? When you get going a lot of them seem rh..."


10504

They were shouting 'don't talk to him!" and at this point that sounds like a reward, rather than a punishment.

I don't mind explaining myself, I don't like repeatedly explaining things to people who either are refusing to understand or seem completely incapable of understanding.

I didn't wax poetic, I explained a logical fallacy between rights and means.
If you believe the gun is what gives you the right to defend yourself, then that is both a disturbing idea and a whole different conversation.

As I keep saying, people are capable of defending themselves without guns. Guns are not the sole means of defense.

[Mary]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "10504
Again, you are rambling. Do I answer all of them or is there a certain one?

10542

Hate to repeat myself, but do I answer all of them? When you get going a lot..."


Travis,
I believe she knows exactly what you mean. You have explained yourself clearly and explicitly repeatedly. She even admits your point is valid. But she just loves to argue for the sake of argument.
I think she just wants to hear you say those three magic words...."Shannon, you're right."
If it is any help at all, I understood your point the very first time you made it.
Enjoy!

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "So, two vs twenty: Sandy Hook still wins.
Even if we go with subjectively, I've seen pictures of the twenty and heard their parents talk.

The Oklahoma mom, I only know as some story you keep telling.
"

On the one hand, I can see you making the choice based on numbers. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Some go the other way. Some go with the many.

I have a tougher time understanding the choice if based on whether or not the lives in question have touched you in some way. If you've seen them and heard their parents talk.

A life is a life, is it not? Whether the life touches ours?

Should the value be connected to life, in and of itself, or connected to us and whether or not we have an emotional connection with the life?

[Martha]

Neither because that is what the world is built upon and without religion or science, history and discovery will be useless.
I mean how would have Dan Brown written such a intriguing and suspense filled book without the existence of science and religion.
They both have their pros and cons but play great parts in history.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Again you keep acting like the rights and the means are the same thing and they are not.

If i take away your bible, do I take away your religion?
If I take away your crayons do I take away your imagination?

I have never said that mom in Oklahoma cannot defend herself with a gun, heck, I've said that if she was legally able to have a gun she could, what I have said is the right does not come from the gun, the means and ability can come from the gun."

Last part first, ....

What you did say was ... you don't have a gun and you can still defend yourself ... you don't need a gun to defend yourself ... you don't think people need guns to defend themselves ....

Further, you asked me why I think one has to have a gun to defend oneself. Aren't there other means of defense.

I'm asking you to think about those statements. (Yes, I acknowledge that you said ... if she had a gun ... she had the right to use it. Further, I acknowledge your posts read as a person who wants stricter gun control laws versus doing away with the right to own guns. Very true. Acknowledged.)

But, ....

You made a stand with regard to whether or not one can protect oneself without a gun. You've asked why people are so wrapped up in believing they need guns to protect themselves. You've said guns aren't needed to protect oneself. You don't have one and never will; you don't need one.

Okay....

Can you envision someone else needing one? Can you envision a time when someone might need one? Can you see things through the eyes of someone else? Maybe through the eyes of an Oklahoma 20-year old who has an infant, a dead husband, and lives in the middle of, literally, nowhere? Can you, even though I've brought her up and your ticked with me, try to imagine what that would be like? For a moment. Can you try to imagine how it must have felt? Can you, who said you could defend yourself without a gun and so could everyone else, explain how she could have saved herself and her infant that day, without the gun?

If you don't want to delve into those areas and answer, that's fine. I'm not going to pick on you for refusing to answer. I have. I'm not.

My suggestion ... and it's only a suggestion ....

If you're not going to consider things from other people's perspectives, like this mom's, perhaps hesitate before coming out with ... I don't need a gun ... I can defend myself ... People don't need guns to defend themselves ... Why do people need guns to defend themselves ... statements. You're a man. I'm guessing you're an older man, not a 20-year old. You're not, I don't think, alone in the wilds of Oklahoma, 45 to 60 minutes away from the nearest law enforcement officer.

You might not need a gun. That's great. But, maybe, it would be helpful, in dealing with this issue, to realize your abilities, experiences, and strengths are not everyone else's.

You know...?

Regarding ...

If I take your Bible away, am I taking your religion?

No, obviously. I could still practice my religion.

But, if you take my gun away and two men break in tonight, wielding a knife, they'd likely take my life. At that point, I'd not be able to practice my religion, vote, give to charity, go to the new Star Trek movie tomorrow night with friends. I'd be dead. All of my rights, my rights to do anything, would be gone. My life would be extinguished, forever.

There is a difference.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "You got my point, but have been arguing against me anyway and acting like you don't for three pages?

Once, this list is finished, I'm done talking to you. "


Philosophically. I get it philosophically.

As I said, which you left out, I don't get it in my heart and my gut.

But, if you want to go the ... I'm never talking to you again route, that's your right and prerogative.

Answering questions can be hard, especially when they challenge us, our comfort levels, etc....

[Mary]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Again you keep acting like the rights and the means are the same thing and they are not.

If i take away your bible, do I take away your religion?
If I take away your crayons do I ta..."

Can you envision a time when having a gun will actually result in your death or the death of someone you love?
I gave you the case of Josephine Fanning. Her 4 year old nephew took her husband's ( a cop)gun and she is now dead. Are you saying that she should have had a gun on her person and she could have defended herself?
Should she have shot her nephew? Are you saying that having a gun makes you inherently safer?
Here's another...and there are many, many cases easily available...5th grade teacher Jeffery Guiliano shots and kills what he thinks is an intruder outside his house. Turns out it was his own 15 yr old son. Did having that gun make him safer? Of course, after all he lived, was it safer for his son...no.
You constantly use the Oklahoma story. And have been told repeatedly, that yes that woman protected herself legally with a gun.

No I think you understand perfectly what Travis and others have said. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: You get what I'm saying, right?

Know what I'm thinking?

I do, precisely. I've been there… I still am there.

Shannon wrote: There have been times when you didn't. But, you've answered a lot more than they give you credit for

“Play it again Sam”

Which film was that from?

Casablanca?

Yes?

No…. it is a misquotation. That line was never said in the film. But almost everybody thinks it was.

It was like that about me not answering questions. Some I did not answer, but I got tagged with that accusation and it stuck. But I never refused to answer any question, more often is was a case of others not liking my reply, and then accusing me of not answering. For example I was asked ‘what does god look like’? Not an easy question to answer.

Shannon wrote: Calling you names. Saying ugly things. Refusing to "speak" to you .

I know and I know why. Those that do that, all hold similar viewpoints. But it was not just me, others who have come and gone from here also got the same treatment, it’s just that I seem to have stuck around.

Some here use a ‘philosophical arguments’approach to their debating. Philosophy is a process of logical reasoning which involves asking a lot of questions but answering very few.

When someone, Travis, for example is asked a question that he feels that he cannot answer truthfully without perhaps contradicting something he previously said, then he has to resort to the ‘politicians’ answer; going around in circles but never committing to the answer, or just coming back with an attack.

Gary will quite often do a similar thing; he will alter the premises of the argument to fit his reply rather than confront something that will involve a reply that contradicts what he previously said.

Travis is over simplifying issues regarding this ‘gun’ thing, and that sort of argument is fine on paper, but not when you are discussing the real world; there are two many flaws to his reasoning.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: I gave you the case of Josephine Fanning. Her 4 year old nephew took her husband's ( a cop)gun and she is now dead. Are you saying that she should have had a gun on her person and she could have defended herself?
Should she have shot her nephew? Are you saying that having a gun makes you inherently safer?
Here's another...and there are many, many cases easily available...5th grade teacher Jeffery Guiliano shots and kills what he thinks is an intruder outside his house. Turns out it was his own 15 yr old son. Did having that gun make him safer? .."

With respect Mary, those examples don't hold water, in the bigger picture.

That is the same sort of reasoning as the ' if we get rid of cars then there would be no road traffic accidents' line of thinking.

[Mary]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: I gave you the case of Josephine Fanning. Her 4 year old nephew took her husband's ( a cop)gun and she is now dead. Are you saying that she should have had a gun on her person and she c..."

Chris, once again I'll state...I am not saying we need to take away everyones guns. I am for sane legislation, including ban on high capacity magazine and assault rifles.
I never said take away guns.
My examples are tit-for-anecdotal-tat with Shannon, as she is the one who seems to think her one example of a woman defending herself is proof of anything.
My examples are just that. Examples to show that a gun does not inherently make you safer. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I have constantly said I want real data, real numbers,
I want police reports, not telephone surveys.
I have NEVER advocated getting rid of cars, guns or anything else.
But I do know that we have laws making cars safer, laws regarding fences around pool to protect children, laws about tobacco, alcohol and many, many, many other every day things that are not inherently harmful but can kill if used incorrectly.
But somehow, guns are magical and cannot be regulated in a manner to make even one less death occur?

Shannon is the person who constantly wants to equate a gun with safety, and refuses to see that she is only using one instance (over and over) as an example of proof.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "I think she just wants to hear you say those three magic words...."Shannon, you're right.""


Of your posts, Mary, I'll respond to this one. For Travis.

In point of fact, I have little to no desire to hear Travis or anyone else say, "Shannon, you're right."

My desire...?

For Travis to think....

Which is exactly what he wants me to do....

It's something I've grown through. Having my thinking and beliefs challenged, being asked questions, being expected to answer those questions, thoughtfully and honestly. It has been intriguing, exciting, frustrating and upsetting. Depending on the occasion. Taken as a whole, I've grown as a person, intellectually and in many other ways.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: Shannon is the person who constantly wants to equate a gun with safety, and refuses to see that she is only using one instance (over and over) as an example of proof.
"

..... I'm sorry but I don't get it. If someone equates gun = safety, then the gun does symbolize safety. Why else would a law abiding citizen want a gun?

[Heather]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: Shannon is the person who constantly wants to equate a gun with safety, and refuses to see that she is only using one instance (over and over) as an example of proof.
"

..... I'm sorr..."

Some gun owners own guns for sport or for hunting; that's why some of my family owns guns.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: " over simplifying issues regarding this ‘gun’ thing, and that sort of argument is fine on paper, but not when you are discussing the real world; there are two many flaws to his reasoning.
"

If not that, not thinking it through to its ultimate end. Yes, there's the philosophical idea that a woman up against four men or two men could defend herself. Though, really, she couldn't. Not honestly. With her bare hands and nothing else? With a baby bottle? With self-defense moves? Even with a whistle or pepper spray?

You're right. Reality intrudes. Does religion? Does science?

Reality intrudes. One reality is that some people are perpetrators of the highest order. When they intrude into our world's, as they did into my cousin's, for example, one runs right up against reality double-time.

While a woman (or a man) who is up against four men with a machete and knives or two men with a knife, her "right" to defend her right to life means absolutely nothing if she has nothing at her disposal that would actually help her defend herself. Nothing. She'll be beaten, raped, or killed ... or all three. What would we do? Look her in the eye and say what.... But, ... you had the right to defend yourself. You had the right to scream and blow your whistle and throw a punch. You did, after all, have that right.

In America, we have the Bill of Rights in order to provide teeth to the Constitution and our original declaration which dealt with our rights to life and liberty.

Some think they need a gun in order to hunt to supply food for their families. Some think they need a gun in order to protect themselves, thinking that's the only way they can defend themselves. Some know, given certain situations, they can defend themselves without a gun; but, in some cases, they understand a gun will be their only possible and credible defense.

[Mary]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: Shannon is the person who constantly wants to equate a gun with safety, and refuses to see that she is only using one instance (over and over) as an example of proof.
"

..... I'm sorr..."

So it SYMBOLIZES safety...but does that translate to actual safety? Again, sometimes yes, sometimes no. If it did no policeman would ever be killed while armed, no soldier would die while armed, and no one would be attacked while possessing a gun and not be able to defend themselves.
So yes, Cheetos can symbolize healthy food to someone, but in reality? Not so much.
That is my point to Shannon.
She is using one example and saying, "See! Guns made this one woman safer, so guns make us all safer" and I say, guns are not a guarantee of anything.

[Mary]

Heather wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: Shannon is the person who constantly wants to equate a gun with safety, and refuses to see that she is only using one instance (over and over) as an example of proof.
"

..."
Yep. As I have said repeatedly.

[cHriS]

Heather wrote: Some gun owners own guns for sport or for hunting; that's why some of my family owns guns...."

...... and would you say your family members who have the guns are law abiding?

[Heather]

cHriS wrote: "Heather wrote: Some gun owners own guns for sport or for hunting; that's why some of my family owns guns...."

...... and would you say your family members who have the guns are law abiding?"

Of course; why would they not be law abiding just because they choose to own guns for sport over protection?

[Mary]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: Shannon is the person who constantly wants to equate a gun with safety, and refuses to see that she is only using one instance (over and over) as an example of proof.
"

..... I'm sorr..."

Well, Adam Lanza's mom owned guns legally. We can assume those guns made her feel safer. I mean you said yourself "Why else would any law abiding person own a gun?"
So guns symbolized safety to Adam Lanza's mom? She was law abiding, right?
How did that work out for her? Was the reality that those guns kept her safe?
How did it work out for the victims of Sandy Hook?
So a gun can SYMBOLIZE all the safety in the world...but is that the reality?

[Maria]

Hi Everyone. I've been away for a while and have skimmed the last week or so. Wow. I think that everyone is picking on Shannon right now. She is a little verbose for my tastes, but she still makes some valid points. And she never says that others must change to her opinions (as some do), she is merely stating what she thinks and believes.

Everyone wants to have their opinions/thoughts validated - it's human nature. Not to necessarily have someone say "You are right" - just maybe saying "I can see why you might think that way", or "good point, however I think this way..."

Sometimes we can get so caught up in how someone words their posts, we don't even get the point of what they are trying to say.

The subject at hand: guns. Are they dangerous? They are inanimate objects. If a sociopath or otherwise crazed person wants to hurt or kill another person, they'll do it somehow regardless of whether they have access to a gun.

Also, this may have been said already, but it doesn't matter if we have one gun law or a whole book of strict gun laws - bad people, criminals, crazy people, etc. (the ones we don't want to have guns) do not think too much about keeping or breaking the law.

So if the gun laws are less strict, more strict, clearer, etc. what difference does it make to someone who has no intention of obeying any laws at all?

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: So it SYMBOLIZES safety...but does that translate to actual safety? Again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
"
How can owning a gun make you feel less safe or not safe at all?

I do not understand the arguments you are putting forward about gun safety.

I would understand if the argument was about guns being 'not safe' in the wrong hands.

[Maria]

Owning a gun and knowing how to use it properly could possibly make someone feel safe. It gives them a false sense of being able to shoot an intruder, hold someone at bay while their spouse calls the police, I don't know.

I think it's a false sense of safety. If it was me, I'd be so scared and upset that an intruder might be in my house, I'd probably drop the gun, or shoot myself in the foot, or miss the person altogether, just making them more mad. Then they could grab it from me and possibly kill me with my own gun.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "She is a little verbose for my tastes, but she still makes some valid points. And she never says that others must change to her opinions (as some do), she is merely stating what she thinks and believes."

I can be wordy; I'd be lying if I claimed otherwise. ;) Thank you, Maria, for recognizing the fact that I'm not about making people change their opinions. I appreciate it.

[Mary]

Maria wrote: "Hi Everyone. I've been away for a while and have skimmed the last week or so. Wow. I think that everyone is picking on Shannon right now. She is a little verbose for my tastes, but she still ma..."

So if we extend that logic to cars? Should we not have any laws regarding how fast, where or the type of car that can be driven? I mean, some are going to speed recklessly anyway, some are going to drive drunk anyway. Should we just do away with all the laws because obviously some are not going to follow them? So does that mean that no laws have REDUCED the incidence of accidents, or drunk driving? Ever? Are all laws pointless?

I do not understand the "We can't make laws restricting guns because people will still use them inappropriately" argument. Isn't that true of everything? So we should just have no laws?
There are no absolutes, and no sane person thinks gun regulations will prevent every crime. The goal is to reduce deaths. Is that really so unattainable? What is so magical about guns that they cannot be regulated? Especially when many other countries have had success...not complete eradication of gun violence...but a reduction that resulted in less deaths.

[Maria]

Wordy can be good... :)

Glad we're back to being friends, Shannon. I hope you know that I never mean any harm by any comment I may post here. Since it's only words, you can't hear the person's voice inflections, see their faces, etc. so sometimes things sound harsher than you mean them to be.

[Maria]

That's the whole thing, Chris. Guns are not safe "in the wrong hands".

The wrong hands could be those of a child, a criminal, someone who has not been trained properly to use guns....

The same could be said of a baseball bat. Is it inherently dangerous? No, but if a sociopathic criminal got their hands on one, could they harm or kill someone with it? Sure they could.

That doesn't mean we should have a bunch of strict laws detailing the proper aquisition and use of a baseball bat!

As I said, if someone is intent on harming or killing someone else, not having access to a gun may slow them down a bit, but it won't stop them.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Some think they need a gun in order to hunt to supply food for their families. Some think they need a gun in order to protect themselves, thinking that's the only way they can defend themselves. Some know, given certain situations, they can defend themselves without a gun; but, in some cases, they understand a gun will be their only possible and credible defense.
."

I agree Shannon, from a US point of view, that is how it is and a guess will stay for a long time.

In the UK we do not have guns or knives (as weapons) so if we are attacked we can use only reasonable force against an attacker. If we do not have 'force' to use we are then in the same situation you would be in without the gun.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "If a sociopath or otherwise crazed person wants to hurt or kill another person, they'll do it somehow regardless of whether they have access to a gun. "

The Boston bombers ripped children apart with pressure cookers, ball bearings, and fireworks.

Some would say those types of incidents don't occur as often. Some would say those type of victims would be more likely to survive.

Ultimately, though....

Humans have always found various and inventive ways to hurt, maim, and murder one another. Guns or no guns. Unless and until we recognize and seriously attempt to deal with other issues, including our culture, we likely will continue to do so.

Something I can say for the people who are making pro-gun control and, possibly, anti-gun cases here ....

At least they're not politicians or celebrities who are protected by many men with guns.

(At least I don't think they are politicians or celebrities.)

I find their, the politicians and celebrities who are protected by men with guns, insistence regarding the evils of guns to be more than mildly hypocritical and disgusting....

Of course, they have a right to their own opinions and the right to voice their opinions. I'd just appreciate it if they realized their circumstances are very different from the majority of the people in the country. Therefore, ....

[Maria]

Mary, I agree. You have to have some regulations about guns. Who is legally able to get them, what types should be available to the public, proper registration of them. Just like you need laws about other things, as you said - cars.

I just don't think that having more, or stricter laws is going to deter someone who has no regard for the laws.

Just like people who drive drunk, or with a suspended license, or too fast, etc. Yes the laws are there, and yes they are necessary. I just don't think they are going to stop someone who is intent on a particular course of action. Especially if that person is not in their right mind in the first place.

[Maria]

Chris said: "In the UK we do not have guns or knives (as weapons) so if we are attacked we can use only reasonable force against an attacker. If we do not have 'force' to use we are then in the same situation you would be in without the gun."

This is really interesting to me. I knew that UK policemen didn't carry guns, at least they didn't in the past, I don't know if they do now.

Do you actually mean that there are no criminals in the UK that have somehow gotten their hands on a gun and might use it on someone? I'm not being sarcastic, I just find that hard to believe.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "I think it's a false sense of safety."

That could be .... It likely depends on the person.

I'm sure some, who own guns, feel safer for doing so.

Speaking from personal experience, ....

When I go on a hike, my cell phone and pepper spray don't make me feel safe. But, I take them with me in order to be prepared, knowing they could come in handy.

The first aid kit in my car doesn't make me feel safe or make me think I'll be able to solve any hurt, wound, etc.... But, I have it because I think it's good practice.

My self-defense classes, gun safety classes, and gun don't, in and of themselves, make me feel safe. I took those classes because they might be helpful. I have the gun, given to me by my father, as his only child. I know how to use it and know I could possibly use it to save myself or someone else one day.

I'm well aware that anything could happen at any moment. Any number of accidents. A "home" invasion. I honestly can't say I feel safe. I live my life. Cognizant, careful, and knowing I've done everything in my control to practice good habits and knowing how to use my gun if, someday, I should need it.

None of that is a guarantee. None of it.

I'm guessing some people, unlike those who feel their safety is assured if they own guns, feel the same thing.

Don't know if being wordy is good ... ;) ... but, it is what it is ... I always have been, even when I try not to be.

[Maria]

I see what you mean, Shannon. I feel a little "safer" knowing I have my cell phone on me at all times.

It is a false sense of safety because it's not protecting me from harm. It just makes me feel better having it.

On a side note, I don't know how old any of you are, but I got my drivers license in 1980, when I turned 16 and drove all over the place with no cell phone. Went everywhere and other than a quarter in my pocket to use a pay phone, I had no contact with the outside world. Now, if I leave the office to run a quick errand and leave my cell phone on my desk, I feel so vulnerable, which really is quite ridiculous!

[Maria]

Also, self defense classes would be something that would make me feel safer. It wouldn't stop a bullet, but at least you could maybe slow someone down long enough to be able to escape a bad situation.

[Mary]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: So it SYMBOLIZES safety...but does that translate to actual safety? Again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
"
How can owning a gun make you feel less safe or not safe at all?

I do not un..."


*Sigh*...Again Chris.. I said a gun may make someone feel safer....but I also asked if that was the reality. I never said owning a gun made some one feel less safe.
Those were your words.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: *Sigh*...Again Chris.. I said a gun may make someone feel safer....but I also asked if that was the reality. I never said owning a gun made some one feel less safe.
Those were your words.
.."

So it SYMBOLIZES safety...but does that translate to actual safety? Again, sometimes yes, sometimes no.


I was responding to the 'sometimes no' part of your comment.

[cHriS]

Maria wrote: Do you actually mean that there are no criminals in the UK that have somehow gotten their hands on a gun and might use it on someone? I'm not being sarcastic, I just find that hard to believe.
"

There are criminals with guns, illegal guns. We have the occasional post office or bank robberies at gun point. City gangs, mostly young people get hold of guns and kill each other. And some murders.

Police don't carry guns. Other than the special units.

There is a lot of knife crime and that, I think is because the law is not tough enough.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "I agree Shannon, from a US point of view, that is how it is and a guess will stay for a long time.

In the UK we do not have guns or knives (as weapons) so if we are attacked we can use only reasonable force against an attacker. If we do not have 'force' to use we are then in the same situation you would be in without the gun. "

Yes, I imagine.... Though, sometimes, it's hard to imagine.

I was sitting here wondering when and how that happened in the UK. Were all the guns collected at some point? Then, I started wondering if people, the commoners, never had guns ... were issued and collected during and after service. But, then ... I'm sure hunting was a big thing there. Do you no longer have hunting rifles? Do you no longer hunt? Is that true for everyone? I swear I remember seeing pictures of the royals in plaids and holding guns. ;) Do you know about any of that?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "No amount of dead kids will get you to change the gun laws."

This really shouldn't matter to me, but it does. When I read this last night, I had to read it twice. Still didn't get what you were saying. Went back to check .... Too damned tired....

The question posed was ...

"Travis wrote: "Tell me how many dead kids before we can change the gun laws..."

Regarding background checks, which would be a change to gun laws, I said none. How many dead kids before we change background checks? None. Zero. Not three or eight or 100. None. I think it should be changed.

Regarding assault weapons, which would be a change to gun laws, I said none. How many dead kids before we change the laws regarding assault weapons? None. Zero. Not a million.

Yet, .... After I said that, you said ... "No amount of dead kids will get you to change the gun laws."

Which, ... isn't what I said.

Either you were confused by my post or changing gun laws means, for you, doing away with the 2nd Amendment ... of which I said, "How many people live in America?"

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: I started wondering if people, the commoners, never had guns ... were issued and collected during and after service. But, then ... I'm sure hunting was a big thing there. Do you no longer have hunting rifles? Do you no longer hunt? Is that true for everyone? I swear I remember seeing pictures of the royals in plaids and holding guns. ;) Do you know about any of that?
..."

I have had to look it up myself as it's not something I know all the details about.

I think the main difference is that we do not have a right to own a gun.

Quote Wiki: To obtain a firearms certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace".

A good reason would be using a gun for sport, hunting yes, but there is very little to hunt in the UK, maybe a rabbit. Clay pigeon shooting and some farmers have them for killing foxes. Yes the Royals have gone hunting on their estates and have shot the odd Stag in the past, but blood sports are not in fashion now so they no longer hunt.

I do not have a reason to own a gun so I would not be allowed a licence for one.

I remember going into Walmart some years ago. As you enter the first things you see and smell are the bread and cakes, then food, clothing, household stuff, entertainment and because it was November Christmas trees and stuff and then the gun counter, loads of guns, all shape, makes and sizes. Amazing.

On my visit to the same store last year, the gun counter had gone, no more guns at Walmart. I never found out the reason why they were removed.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Quote Wiki: To obtain a firearms certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace".

A good reason would be using a gun for sport, hunting yes, but there is very little to hunt in the UK, maybe a rabbit. Clay pigeon shooting and some farmers have them for killing foxes. Yes the Royals have gone hunting on their estates and have shot the odd Stag in the past, but blood sports are not in fashion now so they no longer hunt."

I was sitting here wondering if you had sporting clubs of some sort. Like a golf course. Where you can rent guns for the day or some such thing.

I almost think we still have guns at our local Walmart. I've never checked the guns out at Walmart and in ours, I think, they're way in the back. But, when my students were researching and writing papers on gun control a few months back, I could swear they were talking about guns at Walmart. Again, I'm not sure, though.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, two vs twenty: Sandy Hook still wins.
Even if we go with subjectively, I've seen pictures of the twenty and heard their parents talk.

The Oklahoma mom, I only know as some story..."

The value of life is subjective, there needs to be an emotional link, otherwise you just have a number, a story and a vague feeling that it's a bad thing.

Hearing a story about kids starving in Africa does not have the same emotional impact as your Uncle Bob having a heart attack.

objectively, life is cheap.
Subjectively, life is precious.

Looking at the world around us shows that 'all life is precious' sounds good, but it isn't put into practice.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Again you keep acting like the rights and the means are the same thing and they are not.

If i take away your bible, do I take away your religion?
If I take away your crayons do I ta..."


I've said what I've said, because you keep acting like the losing the gun takes away the right.

If You do not have a gun you can still defend yourself, and people have.
Nowhere have I made that a universal, it works in all scenarios claim that you will survive unscathed without a gun.
I have merely been explaining that if you think the gun is the right, then that's one more reason not to talk to you and that the lack of a gun does not take away that right and SOME people in SOME scenarios can defend themselves without it.
It is not the be all and end all of defense.

If your gun is taken away you may die.
If I give you back your gun you may also shoot your best friend, mistaking them for an intruder.
Or it may be taken from you by a crazy friend or relative and twenty more six year olds no longer have any of their rights.
Or in a despondent fit over the cancelation of 'Glee' you may shoot yourself.
I can give you a dozen scenarios/ new stories where having that gun did no good what so ever.

You can keep telling me horrible scenarios where only a gun could have saved the day and I can counter with a six year that now has to spend the rest of his life without a sister because he shot her with Dad's 'for defense' gun.


Course there's a difference...just like there's a difference between having the gun and having the right.

[Alice]

the creator gave us a mind to use it - there is also an old saying about the creator will help those who help themselves. What better way to help our selves then though science.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I've said what I've said, because you keep acting like the losing the gun takes away the right."

Just to clarify ... before you tell us you have yet another reason not to talk to me ....

Do you support the 2nd Amendment, or do you want it repealed?

I know you've said you and no one else is suggesting we do away with guns.

Just to be clear, ...

Does that mean you support the 2nd Amendment and people's right to own guns and use them for target practice, hunting, and home protection?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I've said what I've said, because you keep acting like the losing the gun takes away the right."

Just to clarify ... before you tell us you have yet another reason not to talk to me..."

I support the 2nd Amendment and people's rights to be part of a well regulated militia.

I just don't see it as a holy thing that means 'you can never touch our guns!'

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I support the 2nd Amendment and people's rights to be part of a well regulated militia.

I just don't see it as a holy thing that means 'you can never touch our guns!' "

Does that mean you think the National Guard members of each state should be allowed to be armed but would like to see the citizenry disarmed?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I support the 2nd Amendment and people's rights to be part of a well regulated militia.

I just don't see it as a holy thing that means 'you can never touch our guns!' "


Because ....

I think I remember your saying no one was talking about taking away our guns and that you weren't talking about taking away our guns.

Given that, I would think it would be easy to say ....

Yes, I support the 2nd Amendment and the right of the people to own guns for target practice, hunting, and home defense.

So, ...

Do you support the 2nd Amendment and the right of people to own guns for target practice, hunting, and home defense?

Yes or No ....

[[deleted user]]

Shannon wrote: "So, ...

Do you support the 2nd Amendment and the right of people to own guns for target practice, hunting, and home defense?

Yes or No .... "


If you answer in the affirmative, you'll be true to your word.

If you answer "no" .... That would be an example of why some people, perhaps like David, have no desire to talk about gun control. Because, when many claim not to want to do away with guns or the 2nd Amendment and just want more gun control, they actually really do want to do away with the right of citizens to own guns for target practice, hunting, and self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. If this is your answer, you need no longer wonder at the reason why some, perhaps like David, take the stance they do. They see what is coming and will have nothing to do with it.

But, we won't know your answer, yes or no, until you give it.

Yes or no for whether the people of this country should have the right to own guns for target shooting, hunting, and self-defense.... Not for now. The right....