Guns and JWs

by VM44 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Oroborus21

  Hey Tony,

  If guns grew on trees or rather on cocoa plants than sure, it might be impossible to effectively reduce crime and violence by highly regulating them. Your example is cute but not real.

  Guns are a technology and complex and manufactured and distributed and made easily available at Wal-Mart.

  If they were just raised to the level of mere dynamite then just as you do not go presently into Wal-Mart and pick up a pack of dynamite on sale neither could a criminal or private citizen.

  If I had my way I would raise them to the "level" of F-16s and Nuclear Warheads. Of course these are different things (n terms of destructive power) but the security involved doesn't have to be. The manufacturing of them could be tightly limited and awarded by government contract. The number manufactured could be tightly regulated so that ONLY the number manufactured in the first place would be what was absolutely needed by the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement. That is step one in limiting what would be available "on the street" since they would be in such limited numbers, all serialized and monitored and tracked, etc. If any ever went missing they would easily be tracked.

  And so and so on. You bring the whole thing around too from the enforcement laws to the criminal penalties for possessing and using a firearm. And everything will fall into place.

  Of course there will be problems from time to time. Such a paradigm doesn't prevent someone who is in lawful possesion of a firearm from using it in an illegal or violent way.

  Only God's Kingdom is the ultimate cure all. (Hee. Hee. I just made a bunch of people shiver.)

  But getting serious again, such a paradigm would without a doubt reduce crime dramatically, at least it would reduce crimes committted with firearms dramatically.

  What I find fascinating is how the gun-lovers just can't move on into the 21st Century.

  I am sorry I just don't understand a world that outlaws consensual sex between adults for money but is horrified at the idea of makng guns illegal.

  -Eduardo
• 

  Dan-O

  "If guns grew on trees or rather on cocoa plants"
  
  Cocoa plants? Dude, you're confusing this with the War on Chocolate. *LOL*
  
  "The number manufactured could be tightly regulated so that ONLY the number manufactured in the first place would be what was absolutely needed by the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement."
  
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The men who developed our Constitution knew this, and knew what it was like to have the power concentrated in a few hands based on military strength. That's why they made sure that the citizens had the right to bear arms.
• 

  POs Son

  Eduardo et al:

  Here are a few more thoughts for you -

  "Extensive licensing" - In my area, Connecticut USA, to obtain a permit to carry a pistol, one must complete a state-approved safety course that includes the legalities of self-defense, complete a local and state-wide background check, an FBI background check including fingerprint analysis, and must have never been convicted of ANY felony or any of eleven violent misdemeanors. I would call this pretty extensive! If you don't feel that this is sufficient, perhaps you should worry, as it is MORE background checking than our school teachers complete - - and they take responsibility for our children all day!!

  "Fully automatic, large caliber, etc" - There really is no need for such weapons to be in private ownership (this coming from a card carrying NRA member, registered Republican). However, the liberal legislators in our natoin are trying to redefine these terms to be broad and sweeping, to include handgun ammunition, andy gun with a "clip" or a grip handle that resembles a military weapon, or any weapon that the military does or HAS used. This could, potentially outlaw a .45 - - a very common handgun caliber! This would be like saying that "drugs are illegal", then saying that "drugs" are now redefined as including Tylenol, Advil and aspirin.

  "99.9%" - Well, hyperbole - yes. But should one use hyperbole when attempting to persuade others by using false statistics? Most likely not.

  Make guns hard to get, and criminals won't get them - Nope. Not really. It's illegal to hijack an airplane, but its done. Its illegal to speed on the interstate, but it's done daily. A more appropriate view of the situation would be: "Make guns hard to get, make victims more vulnerable." When a criminal knows that his victim is unarmed due to government control, he has the upper hand. I make it known to all that I own guns, and am often armed when entering questionable situations (city at night, carrying sums of money, etc.) My wife once felt the same as you... and even complained that I went to the movie theater armed. She changed her mind when I walked her to the next theater from ours to show her where a teenager was shot and killed with an Illegally acquired gun... right in our little town. Now, she feels better that on the slight chance that someone does choose to threated our lives, we have a chance at survival.

  Here are some interesting facts gathered from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action

  Handguns, Self-Defense and Public Opinion
  ** By an 8:1 margin, Americans believe you have the right to use a handgun to defend yourself in your own home. By a 3:1 margin, people believe that to fight crime, getting tough with criminals is more effective than banning guns. (Survey of voters, Lawrence Research, 1998.)

  Defense Against Criminals** Handguns are used for protection against criminals nearly two million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. (Kleck, "The Frequency of Defensive Gun Use," in Kates and Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, S.F.: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997.)

  Handgun Ban Failures** Washington, D.C.`s homicide rate more than tripled after the city banned handguns. D.C. consistently has the highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)
  ** Chicago banned handguns in 1982 and in a decade homicides with handguns more than doubled. (Chicago Homicide Dataset) Chicago has the fourth highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. (FBI)

  Regarding guns being taken from victims and used against them:

  "At most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking a gun away from the victim"- (Gary Kleck, analysis of General Social Surveys, Targeting Guns, 1997)

  Well, I have grabbed a few quotes from outside sources, and I am sorry to make you read them, but when an anti-gun liberal presents false data or pure opinion as fact, the truth must be made known. Firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a GOOD thing. Let's enforce gun laws that exist, prosecute the criminals, and encourage more self-reliance rather than government reliance for safety. If you have faith in the government protecting you, keep in mind that In 1978, the D.C. Superior Court ruled that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."... only you have the duty to protect yourself. (My comments in italics)

  POs Son...
• 

  hillbilly

  For Eduardo and Orobus 21 see the quote from George Washington himself. So much for what the Framersof the Consitution" had in mind, eh?

  "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. When Firearms go, all go's. We need them every hour!" President GEORGE WASHINGTON

  
  
  ?People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.? George Orwell

  George Orwell, who is oft quoted on this forum from his book "1984" hits on something you folks from the Peoples Republic of California seem eager to forget.

  An unarmed society has no citizens....only subjects. Let's enforce the laws on the books and take guns and weapons away from those who cannot behave within the law!

  'nuff said

  ~Hill
• 

  G Money

  At one time I had up to 30 guns. It was kept on the down low as some witnesses had problems with it. I was a firearms instructor and kept my guns in a locked vault.
  
  I don't need them for self defence as I prefer to live in affluent areas.
  
  A gun is a tool. You can misuse any tool and harm others. If someone broke into my home, I'd probably throw on my level IIIA vest and beat the crap out of them. If they were armed, they better aim for the head. It would take time to get my guns out of the safe and load them. Also there are children around so no guns or ammo are left out of the safe.
  
  The US is a violent country. Banning guns won't work. Things are getting worse. Pretty soon I'll be in Mexico full time. I'll miss my handguns but I'm sure a permit to have them can be bought in case I go to DF and someone tries to carjack me. They can eat my .45 slugs from my Sig Sauer P220.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Danno.....What the second amendment can be argued to mean in context Myth of the Second Amendment

  Secondly, "large caliber" to me means ballistics larger than what has legitamate use in hunting North American game animals.

  Thirdly the 1994 ban on automatic weapons was not renewed (despite his promising to renew it while campaigning) by Bush and so lapsed in 2004, at present they are not illegal to buy to sell unless covered by other less specific legislation. In fact in my state they never were, all that was needed was a permit and excuse such as "I need it for my collection". My brother in law collects guns.
• 

  avishai

  I don't need them for self defence as I prefer to live in affluent areas

  I've said this before, that's where the money is. That's where the really smart criminals go to rob.
• 

  eljefe

  Thirdly the 1994 ban on automatic weapons was not renewed (despite his promising to renew it while campaigning) by Bush and so lapsed in 2004, at present they are not illegal to buy to sell unless covered by other less specific legislation. In fact in my state they never were, all that was needed was a permit and excuse such as "I need it for my collection". My brother in law collects guns.
  
  The 1994 Assault Weapon ban did not ban automatic weapons it banned things like "high" capacity magazines and arbitrarily limited it to 10 and telescoping stocks. For more information about the ban you can go here.
  
  Saying automatic weapons was a ploy liberals were using to scare people into voting for gun banning liberals. I remember Kerry using this quite a bit during his election to scare people. He would hold up an AK-47, and imply that this is what the 1994 ban was about the banning of AK-47's. In reality the semi-automatic AK-47 has never been banned. Fully automatic weapons were banned before this and are not set to sunset.
• 

  eljefe

  In any case, you didn't counter my central argument (nor has anyone in this thread for that matter) which is a very simple one: if guns were restricted in the same manner as even say "dynamite" (or whatever "equivalent" would be "strong" enough) the world would be a far better place. Criminals would not have access to Guns like they do and they would certainly be less prone to using them if they were so expensive to acquire due to their highly being regulated. Not too mention yes, enforcing even stricter penalties on their use.
  
  Both myself and others have already refuted this point. Here it is again.
  
  If guns were banned:
  1. Criminals will still have access to them no matter how costly they are. Criminals flout the law, why would banning them make any difference?
  2. A poor criminal will use a different weapon (like a knife) to commit crimes instead of a gun.
  3. A law abiding citizen will not have any means to defend himself against the gun toting criminals.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  There are a number of brothers and sisters in our Kingdom Hall who are keen hunters and own high powered rifles - they have never been DFd and are in good standing so there is no true ban on guns in WT land