There is a discussion to be had on America and guns.
I think the average person gets this– I mean, it’s pretty hard not to. We have a proliferation of guns and near-daily acts of unspeakable death and violence committed with many of those guns.
It seems only reasonable that we, as a nation, talk about common sense steps towards reducing all this violence. And, since this violence is typically committed with legally purchased guns, it’s also reasonable that we have a discussion on who should have guns and how to prevent those with nefarious intent from obtaining them.
However, I think the average person also knows that this discussion is almost insufferable to have. Each side has both reasonable and unreasonable people and arguments, and it is this insertion of refusal to reason by unreasonable people, that often make the discussion a no-go-for-launch.
One of those such arguments comes from the pro-gun crowd, and it goes something like this:
“You idiots! Guns are just tools.”
I’m convinced that each time this sort of logic is pushed forward an angel loses their wings or something. Because no, guns are not just tools.
If we’re ever to have even the most basic discussion on gun violence in America, we’ll have to move beyond a non-starter that is either ignorant or blatantly disingenuous.
This attempt to make those who wish to have a discussion on guns look foolish, backfires. Even if a gun were “just a tool,” those who use this argument often forget the full definition of the word tool:
“Tool: a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.“
When saying, “but a gun is just a tool!” it seems they often mean, “it’s just an implement or device like a screwdriver, so stop acting like it’s dangerous.”
These folks ignore that a tool, by definition, carries out a particular function. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think one needs to be a member of Mensa to know what the particular function of a gun is.
We wouldn’t say the electric chair is “just a chair” or “just a tool” because we know that it is designed and used for a very specific function: killing people.
A gun isn’t some all-purpose tool– I mean, come on now, it’s not a freaking letherman.
Never in my life have I said, “Gee, honey, that picture looks crooked. Can you go grab my pistol so I can straighten it?” or, “Man, this IKEA furniture is really hard to put together without an AR-15.”
The way gun-advocates use the word “tool” is almost always the fallacy of false equivalency– guns are not equal to the other objects in life we commonly call tools, nor do they serve similar functions.
A 6 year old didn’t accidentally kill his father this week because Dad left a screwdriver on the table.
A 3 year old in Michigan didn’t accidentally kill his mom this week because he got his hands on a pencil sharpener.
A woman in Alabama didn’t inflict life threatening wounds on herself because she accidentally discharged the palm sander that was under her pillow.
The 6 people who died in Kalamazoo didn’t die because an Uber driver decided to drive around town and throw tape measures at people.
I mean, for the love of Lemmy people, a gun isn’t just some sort of tool that is divorced from a very specific function.
In fact, “tool” isn’t a very precise word for a gun at all; the word we should be using is weapon:
“Weapon: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.”
Inflicting bodily damage is the entire purpose of a gun. It’s what they do. It’s why we don’t send people to war armed with screwdrivers, and why gun-advocates would not be satisfied if we just let them open carry hammers. They don’t want some generic tool– they want weapons, and they know it.
And this is also why the conversation must be centered around how we responsibly regulate deadly weapons, because that’s what guns are designed for.
There is reasonable dialogue to be had somewhere here in the middle, but that dialogue is quickly stifled when extremists disingenuously argue that we’re only talking about “tools.”
Because that’s not at all what we’re talking about.
I am hopeful we as a people can move forward in some fruitful conversation, but that can’t happen until the blatant dishonesty about guns being “just tools” comes to an end.
63 Responses
Your point of view caught my eye and was very interesting. Thanks. I have a question for you. https://accounts.binance.com/fr/register-person?ref=YY80CKRN
I am sorting out relevant information about gate io recently, and I saw your article, and your creative ideas are of great help to me. However, I have doubts about some creative issues, can you answer them for me? I will continue to pay attention to your reply. Thanks.
used for a particular function… So still a tool! Used for killing which is a function, what said person decides to do with said gun is up to them.
Thinking about my nearly 60 years of living and some of my neighbors. Well, the ones I really wished hadn’t of had any guns, were the ones who drank too much.
There’s a great Simpsons episode where Homer joins the NRA. He makes the argument that his gun is a tool and does things like shoot his lights out at night.
Okay, here goes;
My guns are tools…
… that I can put meat on the table with when the store shelves are empty.
… that I can use to protect my stores of food housed in my beloved family’s survival shelter.
… that I can protect my beloved family from any tyrannical government invasion of our freedoms and independence.
… that I can intimidate enemies of my family’s peace to go to the unarmed house next door.
… that I can trust with my life as I grip them ever so solidly in my cold dead hands.
My guns are, in the mean time, my friends in play as we hone our skills of relationship with each other as a team at the range or in harmony out in the field with the other good sportsman gun practitioners and their friends at play. My guns are hardly more dangerous, or in need of any regulation, than is my basketball or tennis racket on the courts in playful competition with my good sport teammates as we practice at play.
My 357 mag loaded with hydroshock ammo is hardly any more dangerous or even less of a tool I might need someday than any other gun loaded with 16 penny nails. Toys, tools, or obsessions for future needs: what is the difference in my gun from any other tool I keep polished and loaded in my toolbox? Each in their own way serves me to feel secure that I am ready for whatever the future might bring, either by destroying a collapsing society without love for one another or constructing a new and stronger survival shelter I can trust even more than my last. What else could there be more important than choosing to give my responsible time to than the single minded defense of my constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and God graced freedom of choice? I wonder???
Yes! ‘happiness is a warm gun.’ ~The Beatles
“My guns are hardly more dangerous, or in need of any regulation,
than is my basketball or tennis racket on the courts in playful
competition with my good sport teammates as we practice at play.”
That’s, because the purpose for the tool is not to harm anyone unjustifiably. The purpose is to oppose an unjustifiable attack on their rights, such as a rape, home invasion, robbery, mugging or the offense of a police state.
“… that I can intimidate enemies of my family’s peace to go to the unarmed house next door.”
A regular Ben Carson. “That’s mighty white of you”, as Dirty Harry would say.
yes!
Excellent piece. Tragically, needed. It’s not merely about tools, it’s about idolatry. Too many American Christians put our faith into guns instead of in God. To many of us live in fear, not in faith. See: “Jesus: an unwanted Christmas present”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogerwolsey/2012/12/jesus-an-unwanted-christmas-present/
Roger Wolsey, author, “Kissing Fish: christianity for people who don’t like christianity”
If one can’t tell the difference between robbery and asking for charity, they’ll never grasp the difference between self defense and murder. The tyrant always will though, because their intent is to have folks abandon their rights and submit to their will.
God came to teach. Respect for rights can not be forced; it can only come from within. That is why this is not His kingdom, but in His kingdom we see that rights are protected by effective self defense. This world contains folks of various beliefs. When they respect each others rights, there is freedom, which is the equivalent of peace. When rights are simply abandoned per submission to some tyrant(s), there is no peace–there is only the condition of hell. The condition in heaven is found in John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
A gun is a tool. Folks that use tools like guns, did not forget what they’re used for. Their use is based on their morality and the only morally valid justification for their use is to protect rights, in particular, to protect life and freedom. They can also be used to violate rights, which is of course never morally justified, but nevertheless occurs. The purpose for the tool in self defense is to enable an effective self defense, which would not be possible without the tool.
It also needs to be understood that a military and a police force are tools. Their purpose is to enforce political intent. If the intent of the political hierarchy is to violate rights and abolish freedom, which can not ever be morally justified, then folks will need the appropriate tools to defend against that offense onslaught.
It also needs to be understood that freedom is the condition wherein folks recognize, respect and honor their fellow’s rights– those things that are inherent in every sentient rational being equally. Fighting and war is impossible when the condition of freedom exists. It is therefore equivalent to peace. Peace never occurs, when rights are surrendered, that is simply submission to tyranny and nothing more.
It is a weapon. Call it a subset of tool if you must, but it is designed for one use: to cause injury or death. You can defend yourself in many ways without a gun. A gun is designed to cause injury or death. That’s it. Weapon much more clearly defines a gun than “tool.”
What a ridiculous statement. Every tool is designed for one purpose, except a swiss army knife, which is in fact a collection of tools, each designed for one purpose.
When someone says, ‘A hammer is a tool,’ do you point out their dishonesty and demand they clarify that a hammer is a subset of tool, but is designed for one use, namely driving nails?
People who imagine defending themselves with something other than a gun have never faced real violence. Wait until a gang is bearing down on you and your loved ones, and them quickly explain to them why chose to allow them to be killed, because you thought a baseball bat was as effective as a gun. Guns are underappreciated, because most of the people who might have been able to testify to the need for guns are dead, because they were unarmed at the wrong time. Trust me, if you think you’re bummed when you need a screwdriver but can’t find one, wait until you need a gun.
“You can defend yourself in many ways without a gun.”
No.
“Weapon much more clearly defines a gun than “tool.”
No. Doing so hides purpose, which the author points out is an essential element of the definition of tool. The purpose of the tool is not to kill folks, as I pointed out, the purpose is more fundamental than that and is based in morality.
Very short-sighted article aimed at a narrow audience. I neither worship violence nor do I live in fear. Part of a man’s God-given duty is to protect his family. You men who think it noble to die empty handed, knowing that your wife and children are next, have that option, but don’t infringe on my right and responsibility to protect my family. If you think that being Christian ensures protection, you need to read a little deeper into the Word. Many righteous men of the Bible were murdered, including most of the apostles. Turning the other cheek when persecuted is for personal application, and there is no commandment to turn the other cheek when it is your family that is being attacked.
There were 130,000 accidental deaths in the U.S. in 2013 (compared to 33,000 gun deaths), yet I hear no calls to ban cars or ladders or hair dryers or clumsy people. For those of you who are opposed to violence (except violence against yourself, since you voluntarily give up the right to self-protection) there are many places you can move where you can feel safe right up until you are attacked by someone who doesn’t care that you are in a gun-free zone.
Freedom and security are, to a degree, mutually exclusive. The only way to guarantee total security is to completely give up all freedom. I guess the folks here are still on the fence, willing to give up some freedom for some security. Paraphrasing Ben Franklin, those people deserve neither freedom nor liberty. Thankfully, our founding fathers were not as short-sighted as the author and commenters here.
Giving up all of your freedom still won’t make you safe. Criminals operate in Communist countries, too, much to the embarrassment of the Communist Party.
The Soviet Union even had a serial killer.
A couple of questions, If I may:
First, why do men often justify their opinions by talking about protecting, “their wives” or women in general? I’m a woman, I own firearms and am not a bad shot, as good as my husband, in general. For the most part, I can protect myself, as can he. If we were to ever have an emergency where we had to use force to defend ourselves, (a most unlikely situation) we would first call the police, then work as a team.
In fact, sadly, the person a woman is most likely to have to defend herself against is the person you say should protect her… her husband or boyfriend. That sad reality is one of the reasons that a firearm in the house can become a risk rather than a safety measure.
Secondly, I recently asked this of my husband,and I’m asking gun-owners in general. We all believe that people who suffer from mental illness, dementia or mental impairment shouldn’t own firearms. Yet, few firearm-owners consider the possibility that they may come to a point when they should give up their guns, just as we sometimes have to give up driving, as we get too frail to operate a car safely. My father was the survivor of traumatic brain-damage, and we never had guns in the home when I was growing up, because his judgement was questionable.
All that said, my questions are these: What changes in your health or mental condition would be enough for you to give up your guns? Who would you trust to advise you? If your doctor diagnosed you with a condition (such as depression or dementia) that might impair your judgement, would you consider giving up your guns?
Few gun-owners consider this, yet we all believe that some people shouldn’t be armed.
Can you show me the Scripture where Jesus requires men to protect their family with violence?
“Freedom and security are, to a degree, mutually exclusive. The only way
to guarantee total security is to completely give up all freedom.”
This is false. Freedom by it’s very nature is a condiiton of peace that exists, because folks honor the rights pf their fellows. There can be no breach in security or the peace when folks respect and honor each others rights, which is the condition of freedom is. If one abandons their rights, there is no peace, security or freedom. It is simply submission to some tyant(s) program for the benefit of the tyrant(s).
I wish I could count the number of times I have heard this argument used by gun ownership extremists. Jimbd, it’s a logical fallacy called a false equivalence. As Ben said, firearms are designed to do only one thing, and that is to kill. Neither cars, nor ladders, nor dryers are designed to do that.
You are arguing from a disingenuous position; there is no reasoning with you.
Yes, the article was written to a somewhat narrow audience as most of my readers are Jesus-followers. The blog and the types of things I write will undoubtedly be rejected by those who have no interest in actually doing what Jesus said to do.
In the words of Stephen King: “Semi-automatics have only two purposes. One is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell ‘yeehaw,’ and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel. Their other use – their only other use – is to kill people.”
Which just shows that it’s possible to sell a lot of books, make a bunch of money, and still be an ignorant fool.
You’re thinking of Donald Trump, right?
“In the words of Stephen King: ”
Steven King writes fiction.
Great article! The whole “just a tool” talking point is overused and like you said, a non-starter.
A gun is a tool just like a truck or a hammer or a screw driver is a tool. all can be used to kill people.
Whether weapons or tools, guns are subject to regulation, just like freedom of speech and assembly. Most Americans favor some greater regulations than we have now, such as univeral background checks and banning bump stocks, but Congress won’t enact them. Even though more Americans die from firearms than from traffic accidents.
Jumping in quick, I’ll read further later. I have to feed critters now so y’all can select from the grocery counters. Heh, can you imagine where I’m going with this? THERE ARE PREDATORS. They kill the efforts of my work. They can kill me. I protect myself with whatever I have – and it isn’t a shovel.
Friggin people, get real. Not all life is about the city. Work on your own problems but please don’t hobble me. In the country there is no law enforcement today; maybe tomorrow. Neighbors are far away. Predators have to be put down. And Lord knows I hope they have more than two legs.
The US is insane
Churchgoer killed in fight over seat at Sunday service
A churchgoer shot a fellow parishioner in a Pennsylvania church after a fight broke out over a seat in the sanctuary on Sunday, authorities say.
The argument started when a churchgoer told Robert Braxton III, 27, he was sitting in seats reserved for two other church members during Sunday service at the Keystone Fellowship Church, district attorney Kevin Steele said.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/churchgoer-killed-fight-seat-sunday-service-article-1.2618098
Electric chairs do not all by themselves go scoop people up and electrocute them. Someone or some people have to physically restrain another into the chair and flip a switch to on. Just like a gun doesn’t leave my safe all on it’s own and go destroy people or things. Yes, a gun is an implement and thus so is the chair. The hanging the picture example just makes the author sound silly and childish. This author is not one of the “reasonable” people in the debate. The trouble which amendment 2 supporters have is that before the actual argument begins we have to use energy to set aside the delusional internet bloggers believing they are the “reasonable side” of the anti amendment 2. Guns are in fact tools and this fella believes in his heart that he is making smart points. Before we start deleting our own rights, American’s need to improve on so many other aspects of our condition, such as higher education and mental health awareness and treatment. Believe it or not, eventually what we really need to do is make it more difficult for American’s to procreate. Make education level and income a requirement to be able to have babies and then we’ll start to see our nation shift to be less violent, be less in debt and be a leading producer and eventually have less suicide. Chew on that, you cannot say it’s not true. Go visit Walmart and just simply watch people and you will begin to understand the condition of America.
I think Benjamin has a point here. When he refers to the guns as a weapon, he is speaking the truth.
Weapons are symbols of violence and anger in many stories, and words can also be weapons.
And when there is a weapon in the house it is more likely for a person to be killed in it. This is proved in statistics about domestic abusers & guns. When there are guns in a house, it is ten times more likely that a woman and her children will be killed.
Easy access to guns also mean higher rates of suicide. When Washington restricted access to guns, the suicide rates fell, but it went back up after it loosened it rules.
The points so many gun rights advocates forget is that they should be referring to them as weapons, not tools, and the fact that weapons are specifically designed to kill.
This is why I believe that guns need to be restricted to these who CAN prove that they can behave in a responsible and sane way. This includes not shooting from the hip, locking them up at a secure place out of children’s way, not using it to threaten, bully or abuse others, and giving them up when the courts mandates them to do so.
People don’t see that it isn’t the OBJECT, it is the SUBJECT. The subject is violence. The object (guns, stones, knives) cannot be the subject. The object arises because the subject causes it to do so. But America cannot admit that. Admitting that would be saying its society is an abject and dismal failure. And it is. But it can’t tell the rest of the world that after hectoring them for decades about how brilliant and righteous and democratic it is. Thus, it is trapped by its own concepts, which are false. Guns, stones and knives can come or go, but the violence will remain. Why? Because no one will admit it is the society that America created where it would rather consign its children to violent deaths than change its ugly and violent ways.
Relevant to this post, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke his first words in 10 years today from the bench in a case involving domestic assaults and guns. At the very end of arguments by both parties, Thomas wanted to know if it was fair to take away a person’s guns when he’s been convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse. (Thomas is a principled (?) supporter of both gun rights and domestic violence, it seems.)
All of which leads to my question: Is there any disagreement that regulations to restrict the gun rights of domestic violence abusers are necessary from at least a public health point of view? And that the only way we can stop sales to these abusers is through background checks?
Found this in my reader’s suggestion list. I read it, read the comments, then looked thru the archives to get a feel for the place before commenting.
The article says “Each side has both reasonable and unreasonable people and arguments, and it is this insertion of refusal to reason by unreasonable people, that often make the discussion a no-go-for-launch.” Also saw these in the archive index: “Gundamentalists”, “Ammosexual”, “Good Guys with Guns” (in quotes), and “White Guys with Guns.”
Words of a reasonable person? Do they invite discussion? Are they generous? Christian?
Want a reasoned discussion? Try reason instead of insults.
Comments on both sides get rough but some of the anti-gun comments are just mean, like accusing someone of not wanting to give up guns so he can shoot schoolchildren. No excuse for that, nothing reasoned there, just nastiness. Different view aren’t the same as evil.
Rants & insults may be fun but won’t get you reasoned discussion & won’t get taken seriously. Won’t convince anyone either.
How many countries have been defended with screwdrivers? Learn why the founders wrote the second amendment and that question will make sense.
I used to believe the conservative arguments about guns. I also used to live in fear. My dad is a conspiracy theorist to the worst degree and keeps an arsenal of “tools.” He always has. It’s just dumb luck that no one has ever been hurt. Because he is also slowly losing it. And in this state there is nothing legally anyone can do about it.
I moved to Asia and realized life functions really well in most countries without guns. To be a single woman and free to walk at night in peace and safety without fear for the the first time in my life was so freeing. I hated having to move back to this scary crazy country. As a woman, living in the US means you lose your autonomy. Freedom, safety and happiness is not possible to the same degree here. It’s just not.
Thank you for sharing this. While I was reading I just kept thinking about Matt. 18:6 concerning Jesus’ warnings of causing little ones to stumble. So thankful that you emerged strong in the faith but it’s scary to think about those who haven’t.
Atheist/gun owner and ccp carrier. I couldn’t make it all the way through the article. It’s a self defense tool when in the proper hands. If your being mugged do you want a wrench or a gun? Blah blah I know the chances are low. So what? I’ve never had a fire in my home but I own a fire extinguisher. I also happen to hunt for food. It saves money and I enjoy it. I wouldn’t take a hammer to go hunt with I bring a tool like a hunting rifle. Unfortunately our problems with guns comes from our mindsets about the value of life and our wonderful capitalistic society. Let’s not forget our illegal war on drugs. This is a complex issue taking the guns or restricting the good guys from getting them won’t stop anything. Atleast not here.
Okay, this is a very
interesting discussion, which echoes discussions I have heard most of my life;
but as a person who intentionally walks the middle path of Christ
philosophically I find it difficult to understand why it is so difficult for
people to comprehend that both sides of the issue are both right and wrong.
While the conservative
folk are inadequately attempting to point out that guns are simply tools made
for specific reasons which by choice of use can be either good or evil, the
liberal representatives are stating that the intended use of the
“tool” has always been for evil intent and thus should not be
considered a “tool.” However, simply because we do not like the
intended use of an item does not allow us to discriminately say it does not fit
into a category of items. For instance, simply stating that whiskey should not
be called a beverage because it can make a person be inebriated and possibly
become violent, but rather it should be called booze, while it may be totally a
true statement, does not make the classification of the whiskey being a
beverage any less true.
At the same time, I agree
that we need better control of guns by the government, I do not believe that
such control will necessarily reduce or prevent the slaughter of humans by
humans as the liberals believe it would be. Why? While it would make it more
difficult for the violence intent person to perform their massive slaughters,
it is most likely that it would simply such actions to be done with different
methods rather than eliminating the motives causing the actions. What then,
after outlawing or controlling guns, does society then outlaw knives, clubs,
poisons, and so forth?
The one place where I
agree with the Conservatives’ therefore is where they point out that “Guns
don’t kill people, people kill people,” which of course is an attempt to
point out that the problem is a human personality issue which would occur
whether or not guns existed as can be seen in the history books. The real
problem then comes from the question of how then do we reduce the proliferation
of the use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons for uncontrollable violence
against our own citizens? Would gun control laws actually reduce the violence
of this sort? Perhaps a little. I’d like to think so. But most likely it would
only become another political, legal nightmare like occurred during the years
of prohibition in this country when alcoholic beverages were outlawed which
sent such sales of booze quickly to the underground and the violence
surrounding such sales skyrocketed. Social experiment failed, and the sale of
such liquor had to be placed back into the legal, public stores. The same type
of scenario would most likely occur if government tried to confiscate our
citizens’ firearms.
No the real solution to
this issue is not one which is obvious to most people, but I believe should be
to those calling ourselves “Christian.” The only way to control the type of
violence being discussed here is not necessarily to control or confiscate the
offending weapons, but first we must change the offenders, the people committing
the crimes with those weapons. Whether this be by an introduction to the Truth
of Christ, or the fear of absolute punishment via mandatory sentencing from the
courts (which we do not currently have) it is the only way to truly have “gun
control.”
Wow, virtually everyone commenting here should be ashamed of themselves, on both sides. The light of Christ is the last thing shining through here. Many of you owe each other and Christ an apology for defaming his name here. As for the original article, while I agree with the premise it’s certainly written in a style that is condescending and almost guarantied to result in exactly what these comments have shown, and I agree with much of what you wrote…..
I have been worn out by the rabid eunuchs here. I insulted someone manipulating the readers here and was attacked by people who are supposed to be christians but don’t know the bible or the rest of the world. The writer is playing with you like a pope and cannot defend his statements, Enjoy the idiocy, I will slide back to reality
You want to have an honest discussion, then you start out the article with a lie…” And, since this violence is typically committed with legally purchased guns”. Do the research and tell me where you find that the violence is typically committed with legally purchased guns. I’ll wait..
All tools are deadly. You could kill someone with a screw driver. This is why we have things like GUN SAFETY. When you use your kitchen knife you don’t just wave it around and run around the house with it, you have proper safety measures on how to use that kitchen knife safely. Same with a screw driver or HOUSE KEYS!!!!
This is one of the stupidest post about guns I’ve ever seen.
I don’t think blog posts like this are the way to start a reasonable discussion on guns.
If I was in favor of stricter gun control and wanted to entice those who don’t support stricter gun control into a reasonable discussion, I wouldn’t start by mocking some of their weakest arguments. That just irritates people (as you can see from some of the comments).
I’d start by stating what I consider to be the reasonable arguments of the other side. This would show I’m entering the discussion in good faith. Then I’d lay out to what extent I support the right of law-abiding Americans to own a gun. Then I would talk about my objectives as a gun-control advocate. Or something like this…
This is how I would show the other side that I’m one of the reasonable people on this side as opposed to one of the unreasonable ones…that I’m someone with whom they can have reasonable discussion.
There’s a culture way going on in our country (duh). And gun control is one of those issues that plays into that. It’s a proxy. If you’re going to have a reasonable discussion about a proxy issue then you have to convince people that you’re not just engaging in culture war, but are truly interested in that particular issue apart from the broader culture war…that you’re not just supportive of gun control because that’s the proper position of people who oppose “fundamentalists.”
My two cents…
Well done sir. It’s so nice to hear a sane voice talk about this topic. Of course, you won’t change anybody’s mind with this, but it needed to be said, especially here.
Thanks be to God I don’t have to read this comments section. Unfortunately, I read several comments before I remembered that.
Good luck and best of the best blessings on you all, especially the ones who think “they’re coming to get our guns” and that “Jesus wants us to defend ourselves, as the Bible clearly says.” The hate you lavish upon one another is far more effective than firearms. Peace be upon you.
I certainly hope you skirts manage to make guns illegal in the US. Arms trafficking will become so much more lucrative for those of us who “know a guy”.
“What I am not for is bullsh*t arguments and liars. There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun:
F*ck off. I like guns”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
As can only be said by an Aussie.
Please substantiate this assertion: “…this violence is typically committed with legally purchased guns…” Since you are asking people to “stop being dishonest”, you might want to start with yourself. Here is a great place to start for some facts… http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Ben,
I’ve been meaning to compliment you on your choice of pictures for this post. You’ve got good taste. Magpul buttstock, grip, magazine, and angled forend grip. Picatinny rail on the upper receiver and free-floating forend. My only quibble is the choice of the EOTech optic.
Oh sir I have to say you are an idiot and not a christian. First Christ was for having weapons for self defense as we see in Luke as they prepared to go to the Garden. Second the proliferation is violence in the US is because of the destruction of the family and the moral base that it provides. Lastly no the gun is not just a tool. It is something we need because others have them. You have lived in a country that has not had war on it’s soil for over a century so you don’t understand it’s necessity. The second amendment is not just for a person to defend self and family but it is a responsibility to defend community and nation. That is the reason you have not had war here in your lifetime. Now for my question If you are not willing to defend a country that has given you all you have and kept your family free, are you really worthy of being called a citizen? No what you really are is a cowardous control freak who wants to convince people to do what you are not willing to do yourself.
Guns do no have the specific purpose of “killing people.” The purpose of firearms is to expel a projectile in a controllable and repeatable manner. If there purpose is “killing people” then they are used incorrectly about 12 billion times a year in the United States.
Corey is, himself, a perfect example of why we can’t have an honest conversation.
Ex Christian Punk Andy McCarroll British Evangelical – “I have a seven year old daughter and I was shocked and horrified by the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Having listened intently to the media debate on gun control in the USA, these are my thoughts.”
‘Can you imagine Jesus with a gun in His hand?’
Masters Of War Revisited (Lyrics) Andy McCarroll
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XI1bgaobD8
‘And like Judas of old
You set out to deceive
More guns the solution
You want us to believe
But it’s all about money
Blood money it’s true
‘And I’m sure that even Judas wouldn’t do what you do’.
Damn you masters of war…..
agreed. guns are weapons. and yes i don’t see anything wrong with people owning a gun for self defense
Forgive my little rant here before I get to the topic at hand but why do progressives hate Uber so much? Here’s a headline from The New York Times: Man Accused in Kalamazoo Shootings Has Driven For Uber. That’s the headline! Why does it matter that he drove for Uber. Isn’t Uber progressivism at it’s best? I’m waiting for the headline Union Bricklayer Kills Three. Sorry, I just needed to get that out. Now on to the gun debate..
I actually don’t understand the problem and I’m a midwest gun owning individual. We grew up poor and hunting was actually a way to provide food. I’ve grown up with guns my whole life but don’t understand the visceral reactions people have on both sides of the argument. Is this just another example of how polarized we are as a country? Mass shootings seem to draw the most attention yet they account for a fraction of all gun deaths. The minute one occurs you can be guaranteed that the President or another democrat will be out trying not to let a crisis go to waste.The truth is most of these shootings couldn’t be prevented by any law.
Then we have the republicans who seem not to have a lick of common sense regarding gun control. What the hell is wrong with the concept of all firearms having to be registered? We register our cars for goodness sake! Is there no ability to have honest dialogue on an issue that is of utmost importance? I really have no solutions but would love to be educated by those who do.
“What the hell is wrong with the concept of all firearms having to be registered?”
The purpose of registration is to facilitate and enable confiscation.
The difference is the prevailing culture in your country sees it as guns being a ‘right’ whereas driving is a ‘privilege’. Herein lies the major disconnect in the American psyche. Until it is understood that guns, too, must be treated as a privilege, the massive bullet body count will continue in the States.
Regarding your comment about Uber, I’d say it’s relevant to the discussion as he was in fact picking up and dropping off customers as an Uber driver during his shooting spree.
There’s only one end-game from this perspective – a totally disarmed people. Except for the military and police, and since they are government controlled, they can be totally trusted, right? (Especially not to shoot unarmed black men) History glaringly shows otherwise, but this is still the only way the left wants this to end.