Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 10 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 5148
Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:37
Epignosis wrote:
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
I refuse to believe that culture is the only factor in this equation. In fact, Canada and the U.S.'s amount of gun ownership do not differ that much. In 1995, 25% of adults owned a gun in the U.S., and 22% of all households in Canada have a gun. Most of these guns are hunting rifles, which actually have a practical purpose other than to kill other humans. So clearly, gun culture is the only factor. I can only assume that if culture is the only reason why the U.S. has 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada, then it must be because of a culture of crime, and you wouldn't want to admit that the U.S. is less moral than Canada, would you?
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
Good, I might agree with you if we guaranteed everyone who owned a gun was peaceful, but that can't happen with this current law. It is true that Canada has more burglaries than the U.S. (about 2/7 of a difference), but it still doesn't compare to the massive difference between gun-related homicides between the two countries. I don't know about you, but I consider homicides much worse than burglaries. For alternative methods of protecting yourself, I think Walter said it best in an earlier thread:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
Pepper spray? Knives? Self-defense classes? You know, things for personal protection rather than lobbing ammunition?
Not as effective, for sure. But these cases are still less likely to happen if these burglars don't have guns.
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
Okay, but as I said, the crime of a burglary doesn't compare to the crime of a homicide.
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
Automobiles have a use other than to kill.
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Nice article, really. I think the problem is that these laws were not strict enough. Guns should be better policed, made harder to obtain, and the crime with harsher punishments. Now, for my evidence:
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
The Bible is history written down by flawed men so you really have to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt. It is most certainly colored by the writers understanding of things and personal perspective, but it would be foolish to dismiss the whole thing as being a complete work of fiction.
The majority of major events that take place in The Bible have absolutely no other historical records outside of the religious writings (The Exodus events, Tower of Babel, King David, etc.), so I don't see any reason at all why it should be presented as history. If you choose to believe in it, you're acting on faith, and nothing else. If you want your faith talked about in schools, ask for it in a theology class. Don't teach 'intelligent design' as science, and don't teach Noah's Ark as history.
Any historical facts that may cross over into The Bible already have their place in other documents and books, and of course will be taught from time to time, which is proper. But just because The Bible mixes its narrative with real places and events doesn't make The Bible itself credible enough to be considered 'history'. Spider-Man takes place in New York. Does that mean Peter Parker is real, and should be discussed in history class? Of course not.
You completely missed the point, my friend.
I'd advocate teaching the Bible in public schools not because of any measure of historical accuracy, but because of historical importance.
For example, how would American history students understand slave narratives and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches reasonably well if they didn't understand the concepts of the Exodus, the River Jordan, the promised land, and other biblical themes that were frequently alluded to?
Let me give you an academic parallel: Any respectable university program for literature will have a course on William Shakespeare. Why? It isn't that Shakespeare is a wonderful author or the authority of all things literary, but it's because Shakespeare influenced not only legions of other writers (of fiction and non-fiction), but our culture and our very language, probably more so than any other writer.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:59
UndercoverBoy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
I refuse to believe that culture is the only factor in this equation. In fact, Canada and the U.S.'s amount of gun ownership do not differ that much. In 1995, 25% of adults owned a gun in the U.S., and 22% of all households in Canada have a gun. Most of these guns are hunting rifles, which actually have a practical purpose other than to kill other humans. So clearly, gun culture is the only factor. I can only assume that if culture is the only reason why the U.S. has 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada, then it must be because of a culture of crime, and you wouldn't want to admit that the U.S. is less moral than Canada, would you?
He asks you to give specific proof, yet you simply spout off more statistics and percents. It's unreal. And yes, America has one of the most diverse cultures in the free world, so obviously the chances of violent behavior are gonna be quite high when compared to our peace-loving neighbors. And of course your stats and comparisons amount to not much of anything when you realize that the population of Canada is around 30 Million, while there are nearly 400 Million people living in the US. As is the case with all the comparisons you have made thus far.
When you rely on nothing but charts and stats to make your arguments for you, things eventually stop adding up logically. So give me a real-life situation where not owning a gun has saved someone from an assailant. And make sure that story shows beyond doubt that not owning a gun was the exact reason for the victim's survival. You find that story, and I'll jump over the moon on a flaming gay cow.
UndercoverBoy wrote:
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
Good, I might agree with you if we guaranteed everyone who owned a gun was peaceful, but that can't happen with this current law. It is true that Canada has more burglaries than the U.S. (about 2/7 of a difference), but it still doesn't compare to the massive difference between gun-related homicides between the two countries. I don't know about you, but I consider homicides much worse than burglaries. For alternative methods of protecting yourself, I think Walter said it best in an earlier thread:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
Pepper spray? Knives? Self-defense classes? You know, things for personal protection rather than lobbing ammunition?
Not as effective, for sure. But these cases are still less likely to happen if these burglars don't have guns.
Again, you're giving statistics and no real-life situations. And you're also counting on the bad guys not owning guns. That isn't gonna happen, friend.
UndercoverBoy wrote:
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
Okay, but as I said, the crime of a burglary doesn't compare to the crime of a homicide.
No kidding. It doesn't change the fact that a gun wielded by a citizen stopped a crime. This particular incident may not have been as serious as others, but a gun was still what ultimately controlled the situation. And it happens all the time. But of course, statistics won't tell you that. All they'll tell you is how many people die by gunfire. When you over-simplify in this manner, the whole purpose of bearing arms gets lost entirely.
UndercoverBoy wrote:
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
Automobiles have a use other than to kill.
When put in the hands of citizens. guns are meant for defense, not murder. I don't really see how you can put such a broad definition on them like you just did.
UndercoverBoy wrote:
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Nice article, really. I think the problem is that these laws were not strict enough. Guns should be better policed, made harder to obtain, and the crime with harsher punishments. Now, for my evidence:
http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm
I haven't even looked at your article yet, but I am willing to bet money that it will either be just another faceless statistic, or a very left-leaning political article. I'll get back to you however once I read it for myself.
EDIT: Just as I suspected. More charts and not much else. Robert and I have both requested that you present us with more than just numbers to back up your position. So far you have failed to do so. Why is that? And I actually was right about both my suspicions, as that website is clearly pushing an agenda. I want non-biased reporting that gives arguments for both sides. Real arguments, not charts and numbers. You're being lazy in trying to back up your position.
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:03
Epignosis wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
The Bible is history written down by flawed men so you really have to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt. It is most certainly colored by the writers understanding of things and personal perspective, but it would be foolish to dismiss the whole thing as being a complete work of fiction.
The majority of major events that take place in The Bible have absolutely no other historical records outside of the religious writings (The Exodus events, Tower of Babel, King David, etc.), so I don't see any reason at all why it should be presented as history. If you choose to believe in it, you're acting on faith, and nothing else. If you want your faith talked about in schools, ask for it in a theology class. Don't teach 'intelligent design' as science, and don't teach Noah's Ark as history.
Any historical facts that may cross over into The Bible already have their place in other documents and books, and of course will be taught from time to time, which is proper. But just because The Bible mixes its narrative with real places and events doesn't make The Bible itself credible enough to be considered 'history'. Spider-Man takes place in New York. Does that mean Peter Parker is real, and should be discussed in history class? Of course not.
You completely missed the point, my friend.
I'd advocate teaching the Bible in public schools not because of any measure of historical accuracy, but because of historical importance.
For example, how would American history students understand slave narratives and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speeches reasonably well if they didn't understand the concepts of the Exodus, the River Jordan, the promised land, and other biblical themes that were frequently alluded to?
Let me give you an academic parallel: Any respectable university program for literature will have a course on William Shakespeare. Why? It isn't that Shakespeare is a wonderful author or the authority of all things literary, but it's because Shakespeare influenced not only legions of other writers (of fiction and non-fiction), but our culture and our very language, probably more so than any other writer.
I was responding to Slarti, not you. He clearly said that The Bible was 'history'. I was giving the reasons why many people disagree with that statement. I have no issue with where you are coming from at all. I still think a theology section of the class would be the best place for it, but certainly The Bible is a very culturally relevant book, and presenting it in the fashion you suggest is quite reasonable, and maybe even necessary.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:31
Trying to just say something on this debate, I have a question.
I work in Best Buy, you know. The other day a guy bought like 5000 worth of tv equipment. My manager's last name is Glock. This other guy joked about the last name being the same as a famous gun. Talking for a few minutes this guy, a lawyer, ended up taking both the manager and I into a demo room to show us the gun he was packing: a glock automatic with red laser pointer (or whatever is called). He has license to carry it anywhere, even in a retail store. He even told us who to go to to get such license.
Do you really think is wise to allow people to carry firearms in the streets? I can understand inside homes, but outside? Everybody has a breaking point. Imagine this guy, apparently very reasonable, one day has a traffic incident and blows up and grabs his laser-pointer gun and shows that "he's packing". Is this what we want? A new version of the wild wild west? What do you think about carrying guns outside homes?
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:41
The T wrote:
Trying to just say something on this debate, I have a question.
I work in Best Buy, you know. The other day a guy bought like 5000 worth of tv equipment. My manager's last name is Glock. This other guy joked about the last name being the same as a famous gun. Talking for a few minutes this guy, a lawyer, ended up taking both the manager and I into a demo room to show us the gun he was packing: a glock automatic with red laser pointer (or whatever is called). He has license to carry it anywhere, even in a retail store. He even told us who to go to to get such license.
Do you really think is wise to allow people to carry firearms in the streets? I can understand inside homes, but outside? Everybody has a breaking point. Imagine this guy, apparently very reasonable, one day has a traffic incident and blows up and grabs his laser-pointer gun and shows that "he's packing". Is this what we want? A new version of the wild wild west? What do you think about carrying guns outside homes?
I'll let Suzanna Hupp answer that.
For what it's worth, I'll steal a quote I read once online: if given a choice, I would rather be in a room full of law-abiding armed citizenry and one mad gunman than in a room full of law-abiding unarmed citizenry and one mad gunman.
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:44
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:46
JLocke wrote:
The T wrote:
Trying to just say something on this debate, I have a question.
I work in Best Buy, you know. The other day a guy bought like 5000 worth of tv equipment. My manager's last name is Glock. This other guy joked about the last name being the same as a famous gun. Talking for a few minutes this guy, a lawyer, ended up taking both the manager and I into a demo room to show us the gun he was packing: a glock automatic with red laser pointer (or whatever is called). He has license to carry it anywhere, even in a retail store. He even told us who to go to to get such license.
Do you really think is wise to allow people to carry firearms in the streets? I can understand inside homes, but outside? Everybody has a breaking point. Imagine this guy, apparently very reasonable, one day has a traffic incident and blows up and grabs his laser-pointer gun and shows that "he's packing". Is this what we want? A new version of the wild wild west? What do you think about carrying guns outside homes?
I'll let Suzanna Hupp answer that.
For what it's worth, I'll steal a quote I read once online: if given a choice, I would rather be in a room full of law-abiding armed citizenry and one mad gunman than in a room full of law-abiding unarmed citizenry and one mad gunman.
I hate youtube videos as answers! (especially when I'm listening to music).
I'll check that out in exactly 6.14 minutes. But the problem with your point of view is, from my perspective, that we're assuming that people owning guns are law-abiding, and not even that, that they all are psychologically-stable. I think when we're in the presence of things as dangerous as firearms, is better (safer) to assume everybody is a potential lunatic.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:49
Finnforest wrote:
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
I'm so surrounded by guns (Florida is very open about that... I've seen a few people "packing") that just for my protection I guess one day I'll get one .
But even from my own perspective. I know I can explode. I know I shouldn't carry a gun, not in the highways at least. It's a risk for me and for the other guy. I repeat: we're assuming everybody can always keep it cool, and no, everybody can actually eventually lose it is more like it.
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
Joined: November 10 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 5148
Posted: June 02 2010 at 11:55
Finnforest wrote:
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
Yes, but is it really necessary for anyone to carry a gun? There must be better ways to protect yourself like self-defense classes or pepper spray rather than carrying a weapon whose main use is to kill. If we were stricter on gun laws, I'm sure that those gangbangers and crooks may be less likely to be carrying around firearms, having the ability to kill anyone they desire.
I think I'll just use this quote I made up: I would rather be safe knowing that, for the most part, criminals are not carrying guns than let them have one without any restrictions just so I can have more freedom.
(Don't worry, Micah. I haven't forgotten about you.)
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
I refuse to believe that culture is the only factor in this equation. In fact, Canada and the U.S.'s amount of gun ownership do not differ that much. In 1995, 25% of adults owned a gun in the U.S., and 22% of all households in Canada have a gun. Most of these guns are hunting rifles, which actually have a practical purpose other than to kill other humans. So clearly, gun culture is the only factor. I can only assume that if culture is the only reason why the U.S. has 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada, then it must be because of a culture of crime, and you wouldn't want to admit that the U.S. is less moral than Canada, would you?
More numbers, but no evidence to demonstrate your interpretation of those numbers. You are forgetting the huge cultural diversity in the US, as well as prolific gang activity (which constitutes a large number of our homicides).
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
Good, I might agree with you if we guaranteed everyone who owned a gun was peaceful, but that can't happen with this current law. It is true that Canada has more burglaries than the U.S. (about 2/7 of a difference), but it still doesn't compare to the massive difference between gun-related homicides between the two countries. I don't know about you, but I consider homicides much worse than burglaries. For alternative methods of protecting yourself, I think Walter said it best in an earlier thread:
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
Pepper spray? Knives? Self-defense classes? You know, things for personal protection rather than lobbing ammunition?
Not as effective, for sure. But these cases are still less likely to happen if these burglars don't have guns.
Your assertion that homicide is worse than burglary doesn't demonstrate that higher gun ownership leads to more homicide. I am adamant that it is a cultural issue, not a gun-ownership issue.
And how do you guarantee that burglars don't have guns? Breaking and entering is illegal...but let's see here...burglars do it anyway.
By the way, I'm not looking to minimize harm on someone who poses a threat to my family. I will maim and kill before I allow the same to be done to my wife and children. I am loyal to their welfare, not that of a criminal.
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
Okay, but as I said, the crime of a burglary doesn't compare to the crime of a homicide.
And what's your point? No one was murdered.
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
Automobiles have a use other than to kill.
I have no problem with a device that is meant to kill. I like being protected against those who would do me or my family harm.
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Nice article, really. I think the problem is that these laws were not strict enough. Guns should be better policed, made harder to obtain, and the crime with harsher punishments. Now, for my evidence:
http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm
All that article does is say the same thing you are saying without providing evidence for the claim. It is a claim which I find laughably oversimplified:
VPC Legislative
Director
Kristen Rand states, “The equation is simple. More guns lead to
more gun
death, but limiting exposure to firearms saves lives.”
Note that your article doesn't provide evidence that this is true. It merely asserts it in post-hoc fashion.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:02
^Precisely UndercoverBoy. It's so easy to get guns on the US that even armed illegal groups outside of the country (specifically, drug cartels in Mexico) benefit from it. They bring to the US the drug that people use, the US sends to Mexico the guns that the cartels use.
Also, JLocke, I heard the youtube video. I guess the attack on a guy by a mob in the midst of riots is not the answer, is it? (the rest pertains more to having guns inside homes, my question was about packing them outside). Riots don't happen that often in the US
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
That view is dangerously inconsistent, T.
You know whom I get angry at the most out of everybody I come in contact with? My spouse. She infuriates me sometimes. My son is starting to piss me off too.
I think I'll just use this quote I made up: I would rather be safe knowing that, for the most part, criminals are not carrying guns than let them have one without any restrictions just so I can have more freedom.
It's already illegal to murder, rape, steal, drink and drive, and abuse animals.
Some people choose to do it anyway.
Illegal drugs are illegal- yet the law doesn't stop people from acquiring them.
(I love your phrase that implicitly acknowledges this by the way: "for the most part").
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:08
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
That view is dangerously inconsistent, T.
You know whom I get angry at the most out of everybody I come in contact with? My spouse. She infuriates me sometimes. My son is starting to piss me off too.
No, I'm not going to shoot them.
Well, but outside of your home usually is not your wife and son whom you confront.
And don't believe you can always be 100% cool. Never believe that. None can. You also can break.
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:08
UndercoverBoy wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
Yes, but is it really necessary for anyone to carry a gun? [not necessary, but I support their right to if they choose] There must be better ways to protect yourself like self-defense classes or pepper spray rather than carrying a weapon whose main use is to kill. If we were stricter on gun laws, I'm sure that those gangbangers and crooks may be less likely to be carrying around firearms, having the ability to kill anyone they desire. [as I said, if you can get the guns from their hands, I'll join in the euphoria of the gun free street. solving the problem will require some tough choices on the front end. we'll need to allow coppers to "get it done" without hampering them with political correctness. that will never happen.]
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:09
That's a great point. If you carry such a temper, that bad drivers or other jerks could cause you to take their life, then you have anger management issues that go beyond the gun debate.
I see it as a danger. I understand it inside homes. I can even be for it. But not outside. Never.
That view is dangerously inconsistent, T.
You know whom I get angry at the most out of everybody I come in contact with? My spouse. She infuriates me sometimes. My son is starting to piss me off too.
No, I'm not going to shoot them.
Well, but outside of your home usually is not your wife and son whom you confront.
And don't believe you can always be 100% cool. Never believe that. None can. You also can break.
Very well. But then it becomes a question of degree. How often would people snap, and would a few people snapping outweigh the benefit of people carrying weapons to protect themselves?
After all, some people snap while driving a car, and use their cars to cause physical harm to others. Should cars outside your home be banned?
I mean, after all, police officers and army men sometimes lose their cool. Should they be prohibited from carrying weapons as well?
PHOENIX - The Arizona
Senate has given final approval to a bill that would allow people with
concealed weapons permits to carry a gun into a business that serves
alcohol.
The 19-8
vote completes legislative action on the bill and sends it to Republican
Gov. Jan Brewer. She has not said whether she will sign it, but she has
long been a supporter of gun rights.
The measure has pitted powerful groups representing
gun and bar owners against each other, sparking a debate about whether
guns and alcohol can coexist without bloodshed.
(...)
Like I said, you won't be seeing me going into any bars in Arizona in the near future. Especially with my loud mouth. I still remember one incident with an inebriated ex-soldier who had supposedly served in Iraq shouting at me that he "f**ked for America and killed for America".
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: June 02 2010 at 12:18
Finnforest wrote:
Teo, honestly, I would prefer it if no one except police had guns in public. But that's only IF no one had guns. Given the fact that all the gangbangers and crook have them, then yes, I believe the more good people carrying the better. Because there are many documented cases of gun toting/gun using criminals being stopped by good citizens who were packing. Lives have been saved because of it.
So, figure out a way to get them away from criminals, and I'll join you. Until then, I hope you buy a gun Teo, because maybe someday you'll save me
Well, if this is going to turn into a gun discussion I will offer up the following: 1. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not say people can have whatever guns they want under any circumstances. It is about a form of national guard in a time where we had no national guard...militia. We have a national guard now or at least we did until they were mostly sent overseas to fight pointless wars. 2. I think people should have the right to bear arms for self defense. I'm a bit leery about giving people unbridled rights to have concealed weapons in public places. It's a recipe for havoc. Let's just hope the non crazy people are better armed than the crazy ones. 3. I'll tell y'all number 3 as soon as I think of it. Oh wait, thanks to Dorsalia, as long as everyone is sufficiently drunk all the time, there should be no problems.
Edited by Slartibartfast - June 02 2010 at 12:20
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:37
He clearly said that The Bible was 'history'. I was giving the reasons why many people disagree with that statement. I have no issue with where you are coming from at all. I still think a theology section of the class would be the best place for it, but certainly The Bible is a very culturally relevant book, and presenting it in the fashion you suggest is quite reasonable, and maybe even necessary. 
(especially when I'm listening to music). 
Michael Moore
Topic Options
Epignosis wrote: