In death all are equal, just ask this atheist.

[Roma_Victrix]

So why no shooting sprees in the UK since handguns were banned?

That's obvious (they're only available to criminals on the black market, not to psychopaths who can break the padlock on their parents' safe and retrieve their firearms). A better question would be why countries like Canada, which have more or less the same gun laws as the United States, experience virtually no shooting sprees (aside from that recent Islamist terrorist attack)? Plenty of people in Canada own guns but they don't shoot people on a regular basis like in the US. I'd venture to say that's because Canada doesn't have a culture of criminality like the US does in many parts and they do a better job at providing adequate care to mentally unstable individuals.

I hate to admit these things, because I am 'Murican. However, it is true. Goddamn Canucks.

I mean that in the most endearing way possible, of course. They've got better health care too, the bastards.

[Himster]

So America has so many shootings because Obamacare sucks proverbial balls?
That's probably true.

[mongrel]

That's obvious (they're only available to criminals on the black market, not to psychopaths who can break the padlock on their parents' safe and retrieve their firearms). A better question would be why countries like Canada, which have more or less the same gun laws as the United States, experience virtually no shooting sprees (aside from that recent Islamist terrorist attack)? Plenty of people in Canada own guns but they don't shoot people on a regular basis like in the US. I'd venture to say that's because Canada doesn't have a culture of criminality like the US does in many parts and they do a better job at providing adequate care to mentally unstable individuals.

I hate to admit these things, because I am 'Murican. However, it is true. Goddamn Canucks.

I mean that in the most endearing way possible, of course. They've got better health care too, the bastards.

Now that is a good point regarding Canada. Is there also an issue that they respect guns more, that carrying them is a responsibility, not a right?

[Brihentin13]

What sane person cares enough about their neighbourhood that they would kill for it? Which , unless you are a law enforcement officer is precisely the statement you make when packing heat.

What kind of sane person wouldn't kill for the safety of their neighborhood and loved ones? If you want to just bend over and take it, then go ahead, but don't attack my rights to defense.

Hypothetical .Yet real innocents die .

And real, innocent women get really raped.

One can run away from al the above .

One should not have to run away. One should able to stand one's ground and kill someone attempting to do harm to their person with any of those above weapons.

That point has already been answered by the good people above. There is no requirement for them to be in a developed nation.

No, that point has not been answered above. The above posts stated that cops take time to get to you, time during whihc you ought to be able to defend yourself. There is no requirement except the bloody Constitution and common sense.

Defend yourself against what?No-ones invaded and the native American uprisings ended over a century ago.

Home invaders, government tyranny, ISIS, Al Qaeda, various other terrorist groups, rabid animals, muggers, rapists, assorted psychopaths, car-jackers, people who like arson, serial killers...

Of course it is , would not happen at all if weapons stayed at home or an armory.

We're back to "all weapons" again. Disregarding that, murder can still be carried out with a knife or baseball bat.

I understand that there is a commandment about killing.

A commandment of Jude-Christian religion, not of a secular society.

There is no requirement to take a life , if your own is not under threat.

Having a crime committed against me qualifies as having my life in danger.

I find most people to be quite moral

Then how did we get Nazis?

I doubt , if pushed your average person will blow someone away, Charles Bronson style.

Science says you're wrong. Science shows that people are capable of terrible deeds, when pushed, even slightly. The people in the infamous "Milgram Experiment" tortured people just because they'd been told to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

It is a myth that these guns really protect people. It is simply marketing to those people who don't need guns for pleasure or professionally.

So people could have guns for pleasure or professionally? Make up your mind! As to gun protection being a myth, that's just flat out untrue. If I am assaulted and I have a gun, I'm protected. Now instead of getting murdered or robbed, I shoot the bastard down. Guns empower people.

No guns, no bullets, simples.

You conveniently ignore the fact that we've already repeatedly established that criminals will break the law to get guns.

Do Americans educate their kids in Northern Nigeria?

No, but they do educate their kids in a country where Columbine happened. What would have happened there had the teachers been armed? Many more innocents could have been saved. The only deaths that would have happened sooner would have been those of the perpetrators.

So why no shooting sprees in the UK since handguns were banned?

Britain also has a disproportionately high number of cctv cameras. I'll take the odd psychopath over Big Brother, thank you.

Meanwhile, right across the channel, France, a nation with also rather restrictive gun laws(the right to possession of firearms not being guaranteed in their constitution), there HAS been a recent mass shooting, with, lo and behold, AUTOMATIC weapons, which were supposed to be illegal anyway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/france-has-strict-gun-laws-why-didnt-that-save-charlie-hebdo-victims/

Addendum: Oops, missed one!

I am not alone in criticising his cretinous posts. If it is a battle of wits he wants we should bring weapons.

The only cretiny here is the repeated personal attacking being carried out by you.

[mongrel]

What kind of sane person wouldn't kill for the safety of their neighborhood and loved ones? If you want to just bend over and take it, then go ahead, but don't attack my rights to defense.

What, sane people like ISIS and Pathan Tribesmen ? Did I mention that First World countries have Armies and Police Forces?

And real, innocent women get really raped. .

They do the world over , not relevant. God gave us a justice system to deal with criminals.

One should not have to run away. One should able to stand one's ground and kill someone attempting to do harm to their person with any of those above weapons..

What is important, your safety or the opportunity to kill someone?

No, that point has not been answered above. The above posts stated that cops take time to get to you, time during whihc you ought to be able to defend yourself. There is no requirement except the bloody Constitution and common sense.

The fact that a Police force exists provides deterrence.

Home invaders, government tyranny, ISIS, Al Qaeda, various other terrorist groups, rabid animals, muggers, rapists, assorted psychopaths, car-jackers, people who like arson, serial killers...

The chances of being killed by any of the above is below that of being killed by beestings. And we are not waging war against bees.

We're back to "all weapons" again. Disregarding that, murder can still be carried out with a knife or baseball bat.

A bit more difficult though.

A commandment of Jude-Christian religion, not of a secular society..

Jesus was secular. You mean atheist. I beleive there are atheists of moral character who instinctively follow that commandment

Having a crime committed against me qualifies as having my life in danger.

Like cursing .Carrying a bag of skittles is a death sentence I understand.

Then how did we get Nazis?

They were voted in

Science says you're wrong. Science shows that people are capable of terrible deeds, when pushed, even slightly. The people in the infamous "Milgram Experiment" tortured people just because they'd been told to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Poor example, if your assertion is correct then people can't be trusted with guns.

So people could have guns for pleasure or professionally? Make up your mind! As to gun protection being a myth, that's just flat out untrue. If I am assaulted and I have a gun, I'm protected. Now instead of getting murdered or robbed, I shoot the bastard down. Guns empower people

I used to belong to a Rifle Club (leisure) and I was in the Reserves (business) I fail to see how one can't do both. It is having amateurs having guns lying around the house, or stuffed in their tits or whatever . Empowerment eh, the thrill of gunning someone down. Easy to type, realistically though not everyone is a stone-cold killer or a pyscho.

You conveniently ignore the fact that we've already repeatedly established that criminals will break the law to get guns.

In Britain they are reduced to using antique weapons or modifying starting pistols.

No, but they do educate their kids in a country where Columbine happened. What would have happened there had the teachers been armed? Many more innocents could have been saved. The only deaths that would have happened sooner would have been those of the perpetrators..

No-one in Columbine would have died at all if those weapons were not available. Rather obvious really.

Britain also has a disproportionately high number of cctv cameras. I'll take the odd psychopath over Big Brother, thank you...

So you don't like us catching criminals, just have amateurs blasting away in the faint hope of killing one.

Meanwhile, right across the channel, France, a nation with also rather restrictive gun laws(the right to possession of firearms not being guaranteed in their constitution), there HAS been a recent mass shooting, with, lo and behold, AUTOMATIC weapons, which were supposed to be illegal anyway.

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/france-has-strict-gun-laws-why-didnt-that-save-charlie-hebdo-victims/"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/09/france-has-strict-gun-laws-why-didnt-that-save-charlie-hebdo-victims/

How many times does this happen? Barely.

The only cretiny here is the repeated personal attacking being carried out by you.

Did he have a point to make. I am not alone in thinking not.

[ToLazy4Name]

Guns are fine. If guns were taken away, the crazies would do one of two things:

1. Get guns illegally and shoot people who are now a whole lot easier to kill due to the much lower risk of them pulling a gun as well and blowing you away

or

2. They'd just go about it the traditional way, with their bare hands or a melee instrument of some kind. Being a trained fighter myself and knowing what it takes to hurt, KO and kill someone, I can tell you that I myself (and i'm not even a big guy) could very easily maim or kill a person before someone could stop me if I blindsided someone with a knife. A crazy pumped up on drugs and adrenaline? Probably quite a few people.

[Denny Crane!]

Thats so true, look at europe vs the USA...oh shoot you fell spectacularly at the first hurdle. Kthxbye.

[Roma_Victrix]

Now that is a good point regarding Canada. Is there also an issue that they respect guns more, that carrying them is a responsibility, not a right?

Have you ever met a Canadian? They're just adorable, the sweetest people, wouldn't hurt a fly. I think they get irritated by how much I like them.

I'm not sure how they view the gun issue vis a vis rights versus responsibility. I do know, however, that they didn't even bother to reenact legislation that would force Canadian owners of firearms to register their weapons. They have background checks and everything else like the US, though.

Quite frankly, Canada simply does not have the murder rate and violent crime related to drug offenses that plagues the US. They also don't have the violent inner city gangs (black, Asian, or Latino), or the retarded Caucasian trailer trash (even Canadian white trash are pretty agreeable and benign compared to the US equivalent, if the TV show Trailer Park Boys is anything to go by ). Canadians keep close knit communities. They feel safe around each other, even in multiethnic environments. They don't even bother to lock their ing doors at night! It would honestly be a paradise for the average hoodlum from the Bronx looking for easy prey and a home to break into.

[Gaidin]

I'm not sure how they view the gun issue vis a vis rights versus responsibility. I do know, however, that they didn't even bother to reenact legislation that would force Canadian owners of firearms to register their weapons. They have background checks and everything else like the US, though.

That's actually a really annoying phrase. Anybody that keeps throwing that around really hasn't met someone that believes in these rights. That is, it isn't rights versus responsibility. It's rights are a responsibility.

[Brihentin13]

What, sane people like ISIS and Pathan Tribesmen ? Did I mention that First World countries have Armies and Police Forces?

Armies and police forces that cannot be ominpresent, a fact which you continue to ignore.

They do the world over , not relevant. God gave us a justice system to deal with criminals.

The justice system acts after a crime has been committed by punishing the guilty party. They cannot un-rob you. They cannot un-rape you. They cannot un-murder you.

What is important, your safety or the opportunity to kill someone?

And now you're attempting to pyschoanalyze me and insult me instead of debating my argument, a clear sign that you've lost.

The fact that a Police force exists provides deterrence.

Then why does crime still exist, when we have police?

The chances of being killed by any of the above is below that of being killed by beestings. And we are not waging war against bees.

And when bees(or wasps, or any bothersome insect) threaten my property, I destroy them with Raid, which you liberal gun grabbers will probably try to outlaw next, as people just can't be trusted with dangerous items.

A bit more difficult though.

Yet, entirely possible.

Jesus was secular. You mean atheist. I beleive there are atheists of moral character who instinctively follow that commandment

Jesus was not an atheist. He even claimed to be the "Son of God", which sort of implies that he believed in God. If you're referring to society as a whole, then that also makes no sense. We do live in a secular society, but not an atheist one. Religion is kept separate from the workings of government, but that doesn't make us all atheists.

Can atheists be moral, ? Sure! But bringing Biblical law into the discussion of the laws of a secular society is pointless.

Like cursing .Carrying a bag of skittles is a death sentence I understand.

Now you're just being silly. People cursing and carrying skittles aren't attacking me.

They were voted in

Correct. Bad people were voted in by other bad people, ignorant people, and otherwise decent people who were strong armed into voting. So, back to my original point, bad people exist.

Poor example, if your assertion is correct then people can't be trusted with guns.

Then neither can the government, which is run by people. Yet, the army and the police have guns. Better disarm them too!

I used to belong to a Rifle Club (leisure) and I was in the Reserves (business) I fail to see how one can't do both. It is having amateurs having guns lying around the house, or stuffed in their tits or whatever . Empowerment eh, the thrill of gunning someone down. Easy to type, realistically though not everyone is a stone-cold killer or a pyscho.

The thrill of gunning someone down? How about the trill of being safe and able to defend yourself? How about the thrill of not being a defenseless sheep? How about the thrill of not being a victim?

In Britain they are reduced to using antique weapons or modifying starting pistols.

So, people are still getting weapons then, despite the law? What a shock!

No-one in Columbine would have died at all if those weapons were not available. Rather obvious really.

Those weapons would have been available, through illegal means, even if those people had not had easier access to guns. Anyone insane enough to shoot up a school clearly isn't concerned about the legality of their weapon acquisition.

So you don't like us catching criminals, just have amateurs blasting away in the faint hope of killing one.

I like criminals getting caught, but the police can't always catch the criminals before they've carried out their crime. And at what point did I suggest that we should all run out in the street and start blasting?

How many times does this happen? Barely.

Yeah, those Charlie Hebdo guys are just barely dead. Here in the States, 9/11 just barely happened. Hell, those 9/11 guys didn't even have guns, just boxcutters. Better ban those! You know what would have happened if the innocent people on those flights had been armed?

"We are taking over the plane Allahu Ackb-" *BANG* "We're good."

Did he have a point to make. I am not alone in thinking not.

He was making better points than you, minus all the vitriol.

That's actually a really annoying phrase. Anybody that keeps throwing that around really hasn't met someone that believes in these rights. That is, it isn't rights versus responsibility. It's rights are a responsibility.

This is correct.

[mongrel]

Armies and police forces that cannot be ominpresent, a fact which you continue to ignore.

Giiven the size of America's, I find that assertion laughable. After all, the US is content to park a significant number of its forces around the planet.

The justice system acts after a crime has been committed by punishing the guilty party. They cannot un-rob you. They cannot un-rape you. They cannot un-murder you..

It is also a deterrent,the vast majority of people do not commit serious crimes, even if tempted to because the price is too high.

And now you're attempting to pyschoanalyze me and insult me instead of debating my argument, a clear sign that you've lost.

It is a fair point to make, killing people is a serious business. It is normally wrong, that is not subject to debate, so if you sound as if you are encouraging the killing of people, albeit bad ones, let us have you justify that, and not go "oh noes I didn't say that".Now answer the damned question. What is more important, your safety or the chance of a kill?

Then why does crime still exist, when we have police?

It is a business transaction for most crimes, for violent crimes you have drink or catastrophic loss of self control. It is the nature of man. What you should be saying is why in a land where guns are more freely available than Kinder eggs, why is there still crime and why people still get gunned down

And when bees(or wasps, or any bothersome insect) threaten my property, I destroy them with Raid, which you liberal gun grabbers will probably try to outlaw next, as people just can't be trusted with dangerous items.

Bees are a one sting weapon, and they serve a useful, no an essential function pollenating plants and so forth. The calculus of paranoia clearly demonstated. Yet you want to destroy them for the sake of feck But the odds of you being by killed by one remains remote.

Yet, entirely possible.

Not one is a fat wuss, I dare say.

Jesus was not an atheist. .

You can't tell the difference between secular and atheist. On the presumption that you actually read the Gospels you will recall that He "...saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" What part of that do you find difficult?

JCan atheists be moral, ? Sure! But bringing Biblical law into the discussion of the laws of a secular society is pointless..

I find that all humans fall short of the ideal, that is why God gives use confession

Now you're just being silly. People cursing and carrying skittles aren't attacking me.

If you was the only armed person in American that would be relevant. You are not, so it isn't.

Correct. Bad people were voted in by other bad people, ignorant people, and otherwise decent people who were strong armed into voting. So, back to my original point, bad people exist.

Who therefore should have gunz? That doesn't seem right somehow.

Then neither can the government, which is run by people. Yet, the army and the police have guns. Better disarm them too!

But they are trained and professional, for the most part.

The thrill of gunning someone down? How about the trill of being safe and able to defend yourself? How about the thrill of not being a defenseless sheep? How about the thrill of not being a victim?

Thrilling? So you agree that you would get a kick from killing someone?

So, people are still getting weapons then, despite the law? What a shock!

Those weapons would have been available, through illegal means, even if those people had not had easier access to guns. Anyone insane enough to shoot up a school clearly isn't concerned about the legality of their weapon acquisition.

It is such a hassle that only organised gangs bother, and then usually used to protect themselves from or attack other gangsters. The best a pyscho can hope for is obtaining a shotgun license. It would take a while to get round a school with a conventional double barrel. Oddly enough since banning automatic weapons and handguns we haven't had a school massacre. Easy to see why.

I like criminals getting caught, but the police can't always catch the criminals before they've carried out their crime. And at what point did I suggest that we should all run out in the street and start blasting?

What about this thrill of killing them, as you mentioned earlier

Yeah, those Charlie Hebdo guys are just barely dead. Here in the States, 9/11 just barely happened. Hell, those 9/11 guys didn't even have guns, just boxcutters. Better ban those! You know what would have happened if the innocent people on those flights had been armed?"We are taking over the plane Allahu Ackb-" *BANG* "We're good."

And The IRA used to bomb us regularly. What would have happened if we had relied solely on armed police and soldiers in the streets and armed paramilitaries? Oh noes we did and nothing happened except more bombz. We took on the IRA in the field, negotiated with Sinn Fein and worked out an historic peace deal.

Don't you know that bullets and pressurised cabins don't mix? What if a sleeper brought a gun, quite legitamtely into a plane and decided to use it? (facepalm).

He was making better points than you, minus all the vitriol."

Like what? If I want to see someone tallk boolocks I would attend a testicular cancer event. Others as you will have noticed had to spell out the obvious to him.

[Brihentin13]

Giiven the size of America's, I find that assertion laughable. After all, the US is content to park a significant number of its forces around the planet.

There are significant American troops numbers in myriad places around the world. That does not make them omnipresent. Do you even understand what the word means?

It is also a deterrent,the vast majority of people do not commit serious crimes, even if tempted to because the price is too high.

Yeah, especially when the price is potentially being shot in the face by someone who believed in their right to defend themself.

It is a fair point to make, killing people is a serious business. It is normally wrong, that is not subject to debate, so if you sound as if you are encouraging the killing of people, albeit bad ones, let us have you justify that, and not go "oh noes I didn't say that".Now answer the damned question. What is more important, your safety or the chance of a kill?

To answer your absurd question, my safety is more important than the opportunity to kill people. I do not wish to kill people for no reason. I do wish to have the right to put someone down who threatens me or my family. Stop strawmanning and face me, not the nutjob serial killer that you seem to imply that I am.

It is a business transaction for most crimes, for violent crimes you have drink or catastrophic loss of self control. It is the nature of man. What you should be saying is why in a land where guns are more freely available than Kinder eggs, why is there still crime and why people still get gunned down

Crime will exist in every society, unless you place a cop in every room of every building, on every street corner, and on every alleyway. Even then, the some cops would fall to corruption. Taking away people's rights won't end crime.

Bees are a one sting weapon, and they serve a useful, no an essential function pollenating plants and so forth. The calculus of paranoia clearly demonstated. Yet you want to destroy them for the sake of feck But the odds of you being by killed by one remains remote.

Many people are allergic to beestings, so the little buggers can actually be quite deadly. Once again, you make a point that falls short of meaning anything.

You can't tell the difference between secular and atheist. On the presumption that you actually read the Gospels you will recall that He "...saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" What part of that do you find difficult?

Jesus said, "render unto Caesar", as in, pay your taxes. Okay. That does not make him an atheist.

I find that all humans fall short of the ideal, that is why God gives use confession.

The Catholic church gave you confession, but I digress. If all people fall short of the ideal, then I should be allowed to defend myself against their inevitable sinful behavior, which may include violence towards my person.

If you was the only armed person in American that would be relevant. You are not, so it isn't.

First of all, nice grammar! Now, if I owned the only guns in America, then that wouldn't be fair. The other citizens deserve the ability to defend themselves. They should have rights as well.

Who therefore should have gunz? That doesn't seem right somehow.

Gunz? Anyway, by that logic, let's disarm everybody, including the police, because they can't be trusted. You wouldn't want the Gestapo to have guns, right?

But they are trained and professional, for the most part.

As were the SS and Gestapo, who came into power rather democratically. Just because they're better at shooting than the rest of us doesn't mean that they can be trusted to always be a force for good.

Thrilling? So you agree that you would get a kick from killing someone?

Once again, you twist my words in an uninspired attempt at character defamation. You can not stand against my arguments, so you attempt to break down my persona in a vain attempt to win this petty dispute.

To answer the question, I WOULD get a kick out of defending my family. It would feel great to know that, when the time came, I rose to the occasion and took care of my loved ones, instead of cowering and praying that the police would arrive in time to save my family. That doesn't mean someone has to die. Hopefully, the offender would get hit in the knee or something and limp away to be rounded up by police shorty after the end of the shooting. If he did die ,though, I would not feel bad about it. I would certainly not glean pleasure from taking life, but I have no qualms about defending myself or my loved ones.

It is such a hassle that only organised gangs bother, and then usually used to protect themselves from or attack other gangsters. The best a pyscho can hope for is obtaining a shotgun license. It would take a while to get round a school with a conventional double barrel. Oddly enough since banning automatic weapons and handguns we haven't had a school massacre. Easy to see why.

First of all, where are you? I would assume the UK, based off of your IRA references, but it couldn't hurt to check. You know what they say about people who assume. It's rather difficult to debate the facts of your country of origin if I don't know for sure where it is. Regardless, I refer back to Charlie Hebdo, the story of psychopaths still committing acts gun violence with automatic arms in a country with strict gun laws.

What about this thrill of killing them, as you mentioned earlier

As I explained above, there is no thrill in taking life. The thrill is in being protected and not letting people oppress us.

And The IRA used to bomb us regularly. What would have happened if we had relied solely on armed police and soldiers in the streets and armed paramilitaries? Oh noes we did and nothing happened except more bombz. We took on the IRA in the field, negotiated with Sinn Fein and worked out an historic peace deal.

I fail to understand the point. Good job dealing with the IRA. If they ever came knocking at my door, I'd shoot them.

Don't you know that bullets and pressurised cabins don't mix? What if a sleeper brought a gun, quite legitamtely into a plane and decided to use it? (facepalm).

That's a myth. A single bullet wouldn't destroy the cabin.

Like what? If I want to see someone tallk boolocks I would attend a testicular cancer event. Others as you will have noticed had to spell out the obvious to him.

For one thing, he had a rather interesting point about the definition of what constitutes a legal weapon, which you shot down rather quickly.

[Aikanár]

Re-opened. And mongrel you know the drill, cut it.

[mongrel]

Blah Blah]

As you don't seem to recognise that the US is a First World , fully functioning state, I will cut through the above bollocks to get to the heart of the matter.

"To answer the question, I WOULD get a kick out of defending my family. It would feel great to know that, when the time came, I rose to the occasion and took care of my loved ones, instead of cowering and praying that the police would arrive in time to save my family. " you said.

Reading this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ah...-10093797.html


A Muslim refugree from Iraq was gunned down in front of his own house. His only crime, watching snow fall for the first time. 8 rounds were fired, so the aim was to kill. In his mind did his killer get a kick out of defending his family? Did it feel great to know that, when the time came, he rose to the occasion and took care of his loved ones, instead of cowering and praying that the police would arrive in time to save his family from Muslamics?

You seem to see Muslims, not some, but all as some kind of threat. How far are you prepared to go to remove it?

Taken together with the daft idea that guns give dissenters of US government policy permission to form some kind of terrorist network , this is the reason why people with these views and with such an attitude to firearms should not have access to guns.

[Brihentin13]

As you don't seem to recognise that the US is a First World , fully functioning state, I will cut through the above bollocks to get to the heart of the matter.

"To answer the question, I WOULD get a kick out of defending my family. It would feel great to know that, when the time came, I rose to the occasion and took care of my loved ones, instead of cowering and praying that the police would arrive in time to save my family. " you said.


Reading this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ah...-10093797.html


A Muslim refugree from Iraq was gunned down in front of his own house. His only crime, watching snow fall for the first time. 8 rounds were fired, so the aim was to kill. In his mind did his killer get a kick out of defending his family? Did it feel great to know that, when the time came, he rose to the occasion and took care of his loved ones, instead of cowering and praying that the police would arrive in time to save his family from Muslamics?

You seem to see Muslims, not some, but all as some kind of threat. How far are you prepared to go to remove it?

Taken together with the daft idea that guns give dissenters of US government policy permission to form some kind of terrorist network , this is the reason why people with these views and with such an attitude to firearms should not have access to guns.

I do think that Islam is morally bankrupt. You twisted my words again. There's a difference between disagreeing with a person's philosophy and hating them. I don't go about shooting random Muslims. Hell, how would I even know they're Muslim? Then, you called my ideas "daft". Look, Mongrel, I'm done with this. You can throw insults at me as long as you want. You can pull out stories of random psychopaths and try to put reasonable people like me on their level.

[mongrel]

I do think that Islam is morally bankrupt. You twisted my words again. There's a difference between disagreeing with a person's philosophy and hating them. I don't go about shooting random Muslims. Hell, how would I even know they're Muslim? Then, you called my ideas "daft". Look, Mongrel, I'm done with this. You can throw insults at me as long as you want. You can pull out stories of random psychopaths and try to put reasonable people like me on their level.

I didn't ask whether you though Islam was morally bankrupt, that view is inferred in your posts. I don't think your desire for our nations to wage perpetual war in the Middle-East has anything to do with a small philosophical disagreement. And I am not asking about your current gun -related activities as they are presumably legal. I am asking that if you perceived the religion as a direct threat to your loved ones , how far would you go.

I don't consider people who share your views as "reasonable" , just radicalised. Call this a test, like the set of questions asked by Rick's party in the Walking Dead.

[Denny Crane!]

I didn't ask whether you though Islam was morally bankrupt, that view is inferred in your posts. I don't think your desire for our nations to wage perpetual war in the Middle-East has anything to do with a small philosophical disagreement. And I am not asking about your current gun -related activities as they are presumably legal. I am asking that if you perceived the religion as a direct threat to your loved ones , how far would you go.

I don't consider people who share your views as "reasonable" , just radicalised. Call this a test, like the set of questions asked by Rick's party in the Walking Dead.

Fortunately even if someone felt desperate to defend themselves with guns, its the rare one who will go mad and do it ala brevik or others as this thread references regrettable though it maybe. It takes a psychiatric disorder and the triggers.

Unless of course you have the evil child killing sky god of Abraham who is quite capable of providing motivation and trigger together all in one along with some helpful souls on earth to move them along as they descend into madness. Funny really isn't it! Nowt so funny as folk as they say.

[mongrel]

Fortunately even if someone felt desperate to defend themselves with guns, its the rare one who will go mad and do it ala brevik or others as this thread references regrettable though it maybe. It takes a psychiatric disorder and the triggers.

Unless of course you have the evil child killing sky god of Abraham who is quite capable of providing motivation and trigger together all in one along with some helpful souls on earth to move them along as they descend into madness. Funny really isn't it! Nowt so funny as folk as they say.

Posting New Atheist buzzwords won't help overcome your ignorance of Christianity.

Our Saviour Christ the Lord

Luke 6:27 36
Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who treat you spitefully. When a man hits you on the cheek, offer him the other
cheek too; when a man takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well. Give to everyone who asks you; when a man takes what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat
others as you would like them to treat you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. Again, if you do good
only to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do as much. And if you lend only where you expect to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even
sinners lend to each other to be repaid in full. But you must love your enemies and do good; and lend without expecting any return; and you will have a rich reward: you will
be sons of the Most High, because he himself is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate

If you can find an incitement to violence here, let us know.

[Denny Crane!]

its the usual dichotomy present within Christianity and Islam, on the one hand a nice kind gentle person can find messages of love and peace and another can find messages that justify the hate and the killing, after not one word of OT law would be overturned by Jesus. Mohammed had no compulsion of religion on one hand and kill apostates on the other.

[mongrel]

its the usual dichotomy present within Christianity and Islam, on the one hand a nice kind gentle person can find messages of love and peace and another can find messages that justify the hate and the killing, after not one word of OT law would be overturned by Jesus. Mohammed had no compulsion of religion on one hand and kill apostates on the other.

Oh so this is about you introducing some sectarianism into the debate is it? Isn't there enough already out there. Given the USA 's demographics it is almost infinitely more likely that your average gun purchser is either going to be Christian, or have no faith at all, so I fail to see the relevance of your coments.