[J-Man]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

25 or so states allow open carry, believe that would be loaded too. Allah Akbar optional

Yes but when Americans see a group packing that they don't like, they'll ban guns pretty damn quick.

Why do you think when a terrorist shoots up a place there's  immediate talk of some kind of law change for immigration but when a red blooded, white American does it, only the anti-gun group gives a shit.  The Vegas shooting is a perfect example.

1) would guns have helped?  No.  The perpetrator was too far away for anything other than an assault rifle or something with a scope to do any good.  And who carries that to a party?
2) Would blocking immigrants help? No, he was an American born man.
3) Would cracking down on blacks help?  No, he was white.

Thus, when Fox News had to talk about it, they had nothing to rage against.  It was literally "This is the price we pay for open and lax gun laws.  But we can't say that so we'll say nothing and hope no one notices."

Yeah.
Sandy Hook:
"Let's make sure schools have guns in them."  Cause that's just what an elementary school needs: Teachers with loaded guns in their desks.  That was their solution.
"Oh but we'd train them to use it properly and store it and bla bla bla"
Then I say
Why not have a god damn cop at every school?  Or better yet, we can get the nation guard to just stand around with machine guns looking all intimidating.  Why don't we do that?

Of course it's going to be difficult to stop someone intent, with a solid plan where many advantages are in their favor. Bad guys will get guns no matter what or killing tools of any sort to carry out dirty deeds. Blame swat for waiting outside the hotel room for 10 minutes before the guy blew his own head off.

Arming just any teacher is not the answer but arming the ones who are inclined and capable of this responsibility is a good idea imo. Will accidents happen? Surely, but bad guys will at least know it's no longer a gun free zone where law abiding people are punished for their intent to protect themselves and the innocent. Carrying a hidden gun is not for everyone, it can be intimidating to say the least. Even after decades of safe firearms, I found it a little scary to put a cocked and locked or double action tool in my pocket. Pull it out, pull the trigger, boom. What if it goes off by itself? Do I trust this manufacturer with my jewels or life? In the state of Calif. you jump thru some hoops and imo have earned the right to carry. Only approx. 2 or 3 of 1000 peeps actually carry concealed. We don't hear bad things on the news about my fellow sheepdogs. For the most part it's a solid set of law abiding people with a mindset to protect the innocent should the need arise. One day you may thank one of us for saving lives.

I think your fear of guns is unjustified and imo gun laws in Calif. aren't lax by any stretch of the imagination. Not only can't I get the weapons I prefer, I am bound by a book of laws and rules thicker than all get out. I must never make a mistake, keep my nose clean, train, insure myself, shoot only certain ammo at certain places, listen to peeps like you and pay fees up the kester. The course to gun ownership is daunting.

[Rama Set]

It sounds like it is not much more complicated than owning a car with added requirements to ensure you aren’t a criminal. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[J-Man]

Sorry guys but I'm with the athiests on this one,

Less guns = Less death

Unless of course if you live in Switzerland where it doesn't seem to make any difference.

I thought you were raised Lutheran like myself and a follower of Christ?

Death can only be spiritual. Guns have no effect on that.

Apart from that, "Thou shalt not kill" bit.
It would seem the religious (Dither aside) are the bloodthirsty ones here.

I don't feel any less free now than when I was toting a gun, and what are you free from exactly, certainly not paranoia.

It's thou shall not murder.

Incorrect, the hebrew verb used in the commandment mean a bunch of things including both "kill" and "murder".  Also, the interpretation of "murder" as "killing criminally" is a relatively modern one, probably within the last 1,000 years, that the people writing the bible surely didn't intend.  It is more appropriate that murder means, "to kill intentionally".

You are wrong and the word/scripture is very clear.

"The difference between the legal or illegal use of deadly force is really a matter of motive, intent and justification, and these distinctions come straight from the pages of Scripture."

You can familiarize yourself with the word of God and hopefully begin to understand the meaning.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/

Junker yes I'm adding to this post because some peeps maybe hungry for the word? "to kill intentionally" is not the deal. It's to kill with "Malice" ie the intention or desire to do evil; ill will.

Evil, yes the shitty little demons I slay with pleasure.

Now those who don't care or never learned Bible study stuff. Moses didn't carry around tons of stones writing down the books of the bible. There wasn't pen and paper, only chisel and rock. There really wasn't a solid language, picture stories were used at this time too. What is assumed is Moses told stories for 15 GENERATIONS. Oral Tradition, lets sit around and talk shop, no smokie the weed guys, listen ! Then as paper and pen evolved as did languages, Moses' stories were put into writings.

Ok that's my story and I'm sticking with it. So, don't be a shitty little demon. Moses said we could axe dem bastards.....

That page only references English translations of the Pentateuch which is irrelevant to what the commandments say. The commandments are written in Hebrew and any credible interpretation of them should reference the Hebrew definitions of words.

I also delight in pointing out that on your view an abortion is not murder and therefore is ok under the Ten Commandments.

Anyway, you are obviously a biblical cherry picker so I doubt you will concede any of the points made here. Unless of course you kill your children for disobeying or kill those that wear clothes made from more than one kind of cloth? Do you do that?

I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes

[Lord Dave]

I don't live in America so I very nuchly doubt I will thank a US citizen for having a concealed gun.


Also: Accidents will happen?  Why is that ok?  I mean, it sounds like all these people doing these mass shootings is ok to you.  After all, thats the price of freedom, right? 

[J-Man]

I don't live in America so I very nuchly doubt I will thank a US citizen for having a concealed gun.


Also: Accidents will happen?  Why is that ok?  I mean, it sounds like all these people doing these mass shootings is ok to you.  After all, thats the price of freedom, right?

It's a bloody good show here Dave, you should visit.

God knows all about this evil he allows, who am I to question his reasoning?

Freedom yes, good price, you remember the last time you tried to steal it from us, don't you Dave?

[Rama Set]

I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes

How is it murder in your view?  It is neither malicious nor criminal.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

WTF are you talking about cars for? All countries have cars and resultant deaths, start a new thread if it bothers you and stop trying to deflect the fact that your addiction is killing your own people in vast numbers in addition to car/drug/donkey deaths

Using your logic, we should ban cars or for you get rid of your car because of how many people died from them. 

Again, with the cars! Okay let me try and deal with your deflection and your attempt at second guessing my logic.

Cars and their ilk are methods of transport that are integral to all modern societies, the way they have evolved has resulted in hard boxes on wheels that move at speed at the behest of humans of varying competence. The human body has evolved in an environment that, for all but a very recent span of time, did not include hunks of steel travelling at 70mph, hence it does not fare too well when said conveyances, due to any manner of reasons, malfunction or run afoul of circumstance. Cue injury and death. This is a fact of modern living which I accept as a fundamental risk, much the way my ancestors would have stampeding buffalo or wolf attacks, as I avail myself of the considerable advantages of having it/them.

Much of the above paragraph could be re-worded for guns, except for the first line part “integral to all modern societies”, here we would have to substitute “the US and various lawless states”. The subsequent “injury and death” are an additional burden to the second case that the former do not have to bear. It is this additional burden, that we have decided not to tolerate, that we are discussing here.

So, you are stating that more US citizens have defended themselves against assailants in that period, with guns, than died in all the wars? If that’s the case (and I’m calling bullshit), then I think that our point that guns are bad for society is proven. As millions of Muricans having to whip out their six-shooters to fend off their own neighbours is something that doesn’t happen at all in Europe.

So self defense is bad? If we were talking about martial arts would you say the same thing? X amount of people used Krav Mega for bad but far more people used Krav Mega for good.

You are missing the point again, If millions of you regularly need to draw guns as you state (“more people have used firearms for protection in the same time frame”) to fend off your fellows, then your society is fucked in a way that ours isn’t, and guns are the root.

Your analogy sucks, but let’s run through this; The Dunblane massacre was the fault of the teachers/kids in a small infant school in Scotland, as they weren’t “packing” and not that a loon was allowed a gun.
 
No. It's no more their fault than it is the fault of the parent for not buckling in his child because some crazy law says you can't use a seatbelt on a certain stretch of the road. I'ts the government's and/or the establishment's fault for disarming the teachers who wanted to carry.

Crazy gun-nut/paranoid logic.
Option 1. Everyone should have to have a gun, because the result of me exercising my right to weapons designed to kill (whether you like it or not, true), means that everyone is in danger by the sheer numerical odds of random mad Joe having an arsenal when he snaps. The government is culpable for deaths in schools if it foolishly believes that gun-toting teachers are probably a bad role-model for baby bubba. (US). Result; Many deaths.
Or.
Option 2. Reduce the number of guns, with the blessing of a sane populace to the extent that random Joe is extremely unlikely to be able to source arsenal. Do not arm teachers, nurses or nuns on the off-chance he does, as that is fucked up.  The government is culpable for deaths in schools if it does not do this. (Europe) Result; Many less deaths.

The perpetrators of mass shootings gravitate to areas of low or no guns (No shit!) so having more guns than people (US style) still isn’t enough and areas where guns are prohibited are asking for it, what we need is more guns. And a man putting a few bullets in a guy who had finished blowing away a church full of people is proof of this? And my logic is faulty?

Yeah. if more guns equal more crime then why haven't we heard of shootings in gun shops, shows, ranges, and police stations?

Der! You said yourself, “Most mass shootings are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry”. These are not heroic gunslingers looking to prove themselves against worthy opposition, these are lowlifes looking for somewhere to play out their sick “King Jeremy the wicked” slaughter fantasies to prove they aren’t a nobody.

 

How is that evidence? Is it paranoid to have a fire extinguisher?

If you carry it around the streets and sleep with it.

[Lord Dave]

It's a bloody good show here Dave, you should visit.

I intend to, when my brother gets married.  I lived there for over 30 years.  I'm good.

God knows all about this evil he allows, who am I to question his reasoning?

He's an asshole?

Freedom yes, good price, you remember the last time you tried to steal it from us, don't you Dave?

Being American, can't say I do.  Though I do remember all the times Americans have stolen the freedoms of others.  Like alot.
Hell, Americans steal the freedoms of Americans so long as those Americans are a small enough group.

Imagine if the Indians had guns...
Oh wait, they did and we slaughtered them.
Nevermind.

[Luke 22:35-38]

More guns = More crime.
Why are you assuming that the density of guns in a specific area mean more crimes in that area?  More guns in a country means said country has more crime.  It's pretty simple correlation.

And why does this only apply to America, anyway?  Why is it that only America has the "more guns = Safer" rule that you seem to think works?

Correlation doesn't equal causation. If more guns equal more crime then we should be on the top since no other country on earth has as many firearms as we do. But that's not the case. In fact firearms sales are rising while crime and homicide are falling. I'm not saying it's because we have firearms, but I am saying that goes against the narrative of more guns equal more crime.

[Luke 22:35-38]

WTF are you talking about cars for? All countries have cars and resultant deaths, start a new thread if it bothers you and stop trying to deflect the fact that your addiction is killing your own people in vast numbers in addition to car/drug/donkey deaths

Using your logic, we should ban cars or for you get rid of your car because of how many people died from them. 

Again, with the cars! Okay let me try and deal with your deflection and your attempt at second guessing my logic.

Cars and their ilk are methods of transport that are integral to all modern societies, the way they have evolved has resulted in hard boxes on wheels that move at speed at the behest of humans of varying competence. The human body has evolved in an environment that, for all but a very recent span of time, did not include hunks of steel travelling at 70mph, hence it does not fare too well when said conveyances, due to any manner of reasons, malfunction or run afoul of circumstance. Cue injury and death. This is a fact of modern living which I accept as a fundamental risk, much the way my ancestors would have stampeding buffalo or wolf attacks, as I avail myself of the considerable advantages of having it/them.

And I accept the risks of accidental discharge of a firearm when I own a firearm. Same thing. You may decide that you don't want that risk and I can respect that. But don't tell me what risks I can or cannot take especially when you're a foreigner who has little idea what goes on in my country.

Much of the above paragraph could be re-worded for guns, except for the first line part “integral to all modern societies”, here we would have to substitute “the US and various lawless states”. The subsequent “injury and death” are an additional burden to the second case that the former do not have to bear. It is this additional burden, that we have decided not to tolerate, that we are discussing here.

Arms of any type have been integral to all modern societies as well. Name one modern country that doesn't have armed police to some capacity or a military. Even in the private sector, very few western countries ban firearms outright. They may be more stringent, but in Germany for example you you can legally own an AR15.

So, you are stating that more US citizens have defended themselves against assailants in that period, with guns, than died in all the wars? If that’s the case (and I’m calling bullshit), then I think that our point that guns are bad for society is proven. As millions of Muricans having to whip out their six-shooters to fend off their own neighbours is something that doesn’t happen at all in Europe.

So self defense is bad? If we were talking about martial arts would you say the same thing? X amount of people used Krav Mega for bad but far more people used Krav Mega for good.

You are missing the point again, If millions of you regularly need to draw guns as you state (“more people have used firearms for protection in the same time frame”) to fend off your fellows, then your society is fucked in a way that ours isn’t, and guns are the root.

A lot of times the firearm hasn't been drawn at all. proclaiming to have a firearm or simply removing the clothing that concealed the firearm have been enough to stop an attack. And even if what you're saying is true, you're only causing more harm by disarming those who would otherwise had successfully defended themselves from an attack.

Your analogy sucks, but let’s run through this; The Dunblane massacre was the fault of the teachers/kids in a small infant school in Scotland, as they weren’t “packing” and not that a loon was allowed a gun.
 
No. It's no more their fault than it is the fault of the parent for not buckling in his child because some crazy law says you can't use a seatbelt on a certain stretch of the road. I'ts the government's and/or the establishment's fault for disarming the teachers who wanted to carry.

Crazy gun-nut/paranoid logic.
Option 1. Everyone should have to have a gun, because the result of me exercising my right to weapons designed to kill (whether you like it or not, true), means that everyone is in danger by the sheer numerical odds of random mad Joe having an arsenal when he snaps. The government is culpable for deaths in schools if it foolishly believes that gun-toting teachers are probably a bad role-model for baby bubba. (US). Result; Many deaths.

Actually, statistically Finland alone has more mass shootings than we do. The EU as well.

Or.
Option 2. Reduce the number of guns, with the blessing of a sane populace to the extent that random Joe is extremely unlikely to be able to source arsenal. Do not arm teachers, nurses or nuns on the off-chance he does, as that is fucked up.  The government is culpable for deaths in schools if it does not do this. (Europe) Result; Many less deaths.

Please prove that any gun control measure had a direct cause and effect on gun crimes or homicide in general.

The perpetrators of mass shootings gravitate to areas of low or no guns (No shit!) so having more guns than people (US style) still isn’t enough and areas where guns are prohibited are asking for it, what we need is more guns. And a man putting a few bullets in a guy who had finished blowing away a church full of people is proof of this? And my logic is faulty?

Yeah. if more guns equal more crime then why haven't we heard of shootings in gun shops, shows, ranges, and police stations?

Der! You said yourself, “Most mass shootings are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry”. These are not heroic gunslingers looking to prove themselves against worthy opposition, these are lowlifes looking for somewhere to play out their sick “King Jeremy the wicked” slaughter fantasies to prove they aren’t a nobody.

My point exactly.


 

How is that evidence? Is it paranoid to have a fire extinguisher?

If you carry it around the streets and sleep with it.
[/quote]

If a fire extinguisher was portable and concealable I would except for the sleeping part. I also practice carrying a First Aid kit everywhere I go too. One time it almost came in handy when I witnessed a head on collision. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt and the EMTs came rather quickly.

[Lord Dave]

More guns = More crime.
Why are you assuming that the density of guns in a specific area mean more crimes in that area?  More guns in a country means said country has more crime.  It's pretty simple correlation.

And why does this only apply to America, anyway?  Why is it that only America has the "more guns = Safer" rule that you seem to think works?

Correlation doesn't equal causation. If more guns equal more crime then we should be on the top since no other country on earth has as many firearms as we do. But that's not the case. In fact firearms sales are rising while crime and homicide are falling. I'm not saying it's because we have firearms, but I am saying that goes against the narrative of more guns equal more crime.

If no country on Earth has as many guns then we should be the safest.
We're not.  We're actually kinda in the middle.  (Except the Virgin Islands.  That's the top 4.)

But most of the ones on the top are either in political turmoil, have massive drugs cartels, or are just dirt poor.

The ones on the bottom are 1st world, decent economies, and good gun laws.  Plus a bunch of Arab nations not currently with terrorists so go figure.

Though the rate is a bit misleading.
Montserrat (UK) had 1 murder in 2015 and it's ranked 18.

If we rank it by count, we're #18.

Also, we have WAY more mass shootings than any other place aside from those in civil war or with terrorists controlling actual cities.

So yes, while correlation does not equal causality, comparing countries with similar economies to ours but different gun laws does show less murders with them, than in America.

Australia has a much lower murder rate than America.
China has a much lower murder rate than America.
Indonesia (which has a population not too far from ours) has a much lower murder rate.

At what point do you have all these data points and say that maybe, just maybe, guns help people murder other people easier?

[Luke 22:35-38]

More guns = More crime.
Why are you assuming that the density of guns in a specific area mean more crimes in that area?  More guns in a country means said country has more crime.  It's pretty simple correlation.

And why does this only apply to America, anyway?  Why is it that only America has the "more guns = Safer" rule that you seem to think works?

Correlation doesn't equal causation. If more guns equal more crime then we should be on the top since no other country on earth has as many firearms as we do. But that's not the case. In fact firearms sales are rising while crime and homicide are falling. I'm not saying it's because we have firearms, but I am saying that goes against the narrative of more guns equal more crime.

If no country on Earth has as many guns then we should be the safest.
We're not.  We're actually kinda in the middle.  (Except the Virgin Islands.  That's the top 4.)

But most of the ones on the top are either in political turmoil, have massive drugs cartels, or are just dirt poor.

The ones on the bottom are 1st world, decent economies, and good gun laws.  Plus a bunch of Arab nations not currently with terrorists so go figure.

Though the rate is a bit misleading.
Montserrat (UK) had 1 murder in 2015 and it's ranked 18.

If we rank it by count, we're #18.

Also, we have WAY more mass shootings than any other place aside from those in civil war or with terrorists controlling actual cities.

Statistically, the EU beats us and many European countries within it.

So yes, while correlation does not equal causality, comparing countries with similar economies to ours but different gun laws does show less murders with them, than in America.

Australia has a much lower murder rate than America.
China has a much lower murder rate than America.
Indonesia (which has a population not too far from ours) has a much lower murder rate.

At what point do you have all these data points and say that maybe, just maybe, guns help people murder other people easier?

Australia has a smaller population and China is a homogeneous dictatorship with a relatively high regard for life among its people.

[J-Man]

I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes

How is it murder in your view?  It is neither malicious nor criminal.

I believe life starts at conception and now scientist have proven what we believers have known all along. No you can't tear apart a baby with suctions or forceps and get away with it. You will stand in Judgement.

[Lord Dave]

I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes

How is it murder in your view?  It is neither malicious nor criminal.

I believe life starts at conception and now scientist have proven what we believers have known all along. No you can't tear apart a baby with suctions or forceps and get away with it. You will stand in Judgement.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/trasancos/pro-lifers-there-is-no-flash-of-light-at-conception

You really should check your sources.

[Rama Set]

I don't remember bringing up abortion but none the less. It's murder imo. Can one be forgiven? Yes

How is it murder in your view?  It is neither malicious nor criminal.

I believe life starts at conception and now scientist have proven what we believers have known all along. No you can't tear apart a baby with suctions or forceps and get away with it. You will stand in Judgement.

But you said murder is wrong, not killing. Were you wrong?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

And I accept the risks of accidental discharge of a firearm when I own a firearm. Same thing. You may decide that you don't want that risk and I can respect that. But don't tell me what risks I can or cannot take especially when you're a foreigner who has little idea what goes on in my country.

Quickly then as I'm packing to go away for a long weekend.
I wouldn't dream of telling what you should or shouldn't do, not my place. What I was attempting to do was to counter the arguements you seemed to be putting forward, that the answer to gun crime is more guns.
As to what happens in your country, it's pretty much out there for all to see, and I have been there and had this discussion with a compatriot of yours, whilst being warned about what might get me shot should I be pulled over.



Arms of any type have been integral to all modern societies as well. Name one modern country that doesn't have armed police to some capacity or a military. Even in the private sector, very few western countries ban firearms outright. They may be more stringent, but in Germany for example you you can legally own an AR15.

Absolutely, but with much greater restrictions that seem to lessen the amount of gun deaths per capita, without lowering freedoms other than the perverse one of owning a killing machine.




A lot of times the firearm hasn't been drawn at all. proclaiming to have a firearm or simply removing the clothing that concealed the firearm have been enough to stop an attack. And even if what you're saying is true, you're only causing more harm by disarming those who would otherwise had successfully defended themselves from an attack.

An attack made more probable, if the statistics are true, if there are more guns in circulation. We freely give up the "freedom" of owning a gun to enjoy the freedom of being less likely to die by one.




Actually, statistically Finland alone has more mass shootings than we do. The EU as well.

I'll take your word for that for now, but per capita gun deaths in both those are lower than the US.



Please prove that any gun control measure had a direct cause and effect on gun crimes or homicide in general.

Can't, but see Lord Dave's post above to why it seems likely.


Yeah. if more guns equal more crime then why haven't we heard of shootings in gun shops, shows, ranges, and police stations?

You said yourself, “Most mass shootings are committed in gun free zones where people aren't allowed to carry”. These are not heroic gunslingers looking to prove themselves against worthy opposition, these are lowlifes looking for somewhere to play out their sick “King Jeremy the wicked” slaughter fantasies to prove they aren’t a nobody.

My point exactly.

So, your point is that there should be no areas where guns should be prohibited, and that would make everybody safer? Bizarre, blaming the unarmed for getting killed.
 

Anyway going to Lundy Island for a break, they have one bolt action rifle for putting down injured deer, but it is locked away and hasn't been used in living memory, i think I will be safe.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Anyway going to Lundy Island for a break, they have one bolt action rifle for putting down injured deer, but it is locked away and hasn't been used in living memory, i think I will be safe.

Lundy Island in the UK? I've always fancied going there, you can see it from the north coast of Devon. It's one of the many little British islands that fascinate me. Let us know what it's like.

[J-Man]

What motivated Stephen Paddock to do this?

He was a wealthy retired High Roller with RE property, people like that are plumb lazy.
Did he really lift all those heavy guns into his room, why didn't he ask his golf caddy to do it.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, there's something else going on here.

Despite all that, what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation?
When you don't even need a reason to shoot 500 people and murder sixty.

In this guys latest video, he discusses the shooters video'd, on top of the Luxor private suite building. If the video is real, it's pretty damn compelling of his opinion of events over the many videos he does.

https://vimeo.com/244093268
"CONFIRMED - TWO SHOOTERS FROM THE LUXOR HOTEL / THE SAUDI PRINCE WAS NOT IN LAS VEGAS"

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Anyway going to Lundy Island for a break, they have one bolt action rifle for putting down injured deer, but it is locked away and hasn't been used in living memory, i think I will be safe.

Lundy Island in the UK? I've always fancied going there, you can see it from the north coast of Devon. It's one of the many little British islands that fascinate me. Let us know what it's like.

Done, see (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6553.msg133242#msg133242)