You should find this interesting: http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/alabama-chief-justice-tells-judges-to-halt-same-sex-marriages/ Kim Davis was in a different state.
File under principled dissent, of which Scripture provides many examples.
I think the problem is that as a law abiding citizen in the US you are more likely to be shot dead by another law abiding citizen than by a criminal. As far as I can see massacres are usually conducted by law abiding citizens, i. e. people who hadn’t conducted criminal acts before. This also applies to terrorist attacks. Be it the attacks of 9/11 or the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the people involved in them were “law abiding citizens” in this sense. Someone pointed to the irony that in the US it is very difficult for a terrorist to get to a plain, but it is no problem for him to buy a weapon. Criminals on the other hand usually don’t just shoot people indiscriminately. If they kill someone they do it because they want to kill the respective person or it happens unintentionally, e. g. if bystanders are hit by bullets because they happen to be close to a shooting between gang members. Now if someone, let’s say a professional killer, really wants to kill you, a gun might not be very helpful, either, because he certainly will find a way to kill you.
I think the problem is that as a law abiding citizen in the US you are more likely to be shot dead by another law abiding citizen than by a criminal.
Source?
As far as I can see massacres are usually conducted by law abiding citizens, i. e. people who hadn’t conducted criminal acts before. This also applies to terrorist attacks. Be it the attacks of 9/11 or the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the people involved in them were “law abiding citizens” in this sense.
That's dead wrong. The 9/11 jihadis weren't US citizens.
Obviously individuals like the San Bernardino couple have been planning to wage jihad. Communicating with terrorists who are enemies of the state. They're taking active steps against the US gov't even prior to carrying out their horrific acts. They subscribe to sharia and wish to see America fall under sharia. Sharia arguably undermines the foundations of our nation's laws. They're plotting America's demise. If they're US citizens like the husband was, I forget if the wife was a green card holder yet, then they're traitors.
Someone pointed to the irony that in the US it is very difficult for a terrorist to get to a plain, but it is no problem for him to buy a weapon.
Terrorists will do whatever it takes to subvert America and harm Americans.
If (arguendo) it's true "it is no problem for [the terrorist] to buy a weapon," then we should rectify this.
Criminals on the other hand usually don’t just shoot people indiscriminately. If they kill someone they do it because they want to kill the respective person or it happens unintentionally, e. g. if bystanders are hit by bullets because they happen to be close to a shooting between gang members.
What makes you think this is true? You must live in a bubble.
Now if someone, let’s say a professional killer, really wants to kill you, a gun might not be very helpful, either, because he certainly will find a way to kill you.
In that case, disarming law-abiding Americans will all but ensure they'll get killed. There's not even a fighting chance to defend themselves.
"I think the problem is that as a law abiding citizen in the US you are more likely to be shot dead by another law abiding citizen than by a criminal. As far as I can see massacres are usually conducted by law abiding citizens, i. e. people who hadn’t conducted criminal acts before. This also applies to terrorist attacks."
i) Most murders aren't mass shootings.
ii) You have a Pickwickian definition of a "law-abiding citizen." Murder is against the law.
iii) Likewise, your definition seems to rely on a gimmick for how mass shootings are counted. See correctives by Mark Follman.
iii) Do you think most murders in Detroit, Flint, Trenton, Newark, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, &c. aren't committed by criminals (i.e. people with priors)?
"Someone pointed to the irony that in the US it is very difficult for a terrorist to get to a plain [sic]"
What's your evidence that it's hard for men and women with EU or UK passports to board a commercial flight to the US?
"but it is no problem for him to buy a weapon."
Even if we banned gun sales in the US, it would still be easy to buy one. You could buy a gun in Mexico, then smuggle it across our porous border. Likewise, a gun ban would simply produce a black market for guns, just as we have a black market for narcotics.
"Criminals on the other hand usually don’t just shoot people indiscriminately."
Isn't criminal gun violence often on the spur of the moment?
You should find this interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wnd.com/2016/01/alabama-chief-justice-tells-judges-to-halt-same-sex-marriages/ Kim Davis was in a different state.
File under principled dissent, of which Scripture provides many examples.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is that as a law abiding citizen in the US you are more likely to be shot dead by another law abiding citizen than by a criminal. As far as I can see massacres are usually conducted by law abiding citizens, i. e. people who hadn’t conducted criminal acts before. This also applies to terrorist attacks. Be it the attacks of 9/11 or the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the people involved in them were “law abiding citizens” in this sense. Someone pointed to the irony that in the US it is very difficult for a terrorist to get to a plain, but it is no problem for him to buy a weapon. Criminals on the other hand usually don’t just shoot people indiscriminately. If they kill someone they do it because they want to kill the respective person or it happens unintentionally, e. g. if bystanders are hit by bullets because they happen to be close to a shooting between gang members. Now if someone, let’s say a professional killer, really wants to kill you, a gun might not be very helpful, either, because he certainly will find a way to kill you.
ReplyDeletePatrick:
DeleteI think the problem is that as a law abiding citizen in the US you are more likely to be shot dead by another law abiding citizen than by a criminal.
Source?
As far as I can see massacres are usually conducted by law abiding citizens, i. e. people who hadn’t conducted criminal acts before. This also applies to terrorist attacks. Be it the attacks of 9/11 or the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the people involved in them were “law abiding citizens” in this sense.
That's dead wrong. The 9/11 jihadis weren't US citizens.
Obviously individuals like the San Bernardino couple have been planning to wage jihad. Communicating with terrorists who are enemies of the state. They're taking active steps against the US gov't even prior to carrying out their horrific acts. They subscribe to sharia and wish to see America fall under sharia. Sharia arguably undermines the foundations of our nation's laws. They're plotting America's demise. If they're US citizens like the husband was, I forget if the wife was a green card holder yet, then they're traitors.
Someone pointed to the irony that in the US it is very difficult for a terrorist to get to a plain, but it is no problem for him to buy a weapon.
Terrorists will do whatever it takes to subvert America and harm Americans.
If (arguendo) it's true "it is no problem for [the terrorist] to buy a weapon," then we should rectify this.
Criminals on the other hand usually don’t just shoot people indiscriminately. If they kill someone they do it because they want to kill the respective person or it happens unintentionally, e. g. if bystanders are hit by bullets because they happen to be close to a shooting between gang members.
What makes you think this is true? You must live in a bubble.
Now if someone, let’s say a professional killer, really wants to kill you, a gun might not be very helpful, either, because he certainly will find a way to kill you.
In that case, disarming law-abiding Americans will all but ensure they'll get killed. There's not even a fighting chance to defend themselves.
"I think the problem is that as a law abiding citizen in the US you are more likely to be shot dead by another law abiding citizen than by a criminal. As far as I can see massacres are usually conducted by law abiding citizens, i. e. people who hadn’t conducted criminal acts before. This also applies to terrorist attacks."
Deletei) Most murders aren't mass shootings.
ii) You have a Pickwickian definition of a "law-abiding citizen." Murder is against the law.
iii) Likewise, your definition seems to rely on a gimmick for how mass shootings are counted. See correctives by Mark Follman.
iii) Do you think most murders in Detroit, Flint, Trenton, Newark, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, &c. aren't committed by criminals (i.e. people with priors)?
"Someone pointed to the irony that in the US it is very difficult for a terrorist to get to a plain [sic]"
What's your evidence that it's hard for men and women with EU or UK passports to board a commercial flight to the US?
"but it is no problem for him to buy a weapon."
Even if we banned gun sales in the US, it would still be easy to buy one. You could buy a gun in Mexico, then smuggle it across our porous border. Likewise, a gun ban would simply produce a black market for guns, just as we have a black market for narcotics.
"Criminals on the other hand usually don’t just shoot people indiscriminately."
Isn't criminal gun violence often on the spur of the moment?