http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/UPDATES01/71209024

 

Terrible tragedy kept from being worse by a trained woman with a gun. 

That's what I want to know...

Listen to me, even if you hate or love me, if you have become disappointed or excited about what I have to say.  Listen to me, not because of my wisdom, not because of my understanding of all life matters, but because I have thought about these things.  Most people listen to people all the time who have no thoughts about what they're saying.  If you have the time to listen to such vacuous thoughts, why would you refuse to listen to the worthwhile?  Alas, such are the times.

 

Listen to me: you can't save yourself.  Your purpose is not a job.  It's not education.  It's not the "Sunday School" answers you've been fed thus far.  America has lied to you.  That attractive person you saw doesn't matter.  That party you wanted to attend doesn't matter.  Don't bother losing yourself because you haven't tried probably and you probably don't understand what it means.  All you alternative kids, you're just as vapid as the preppy kids, so can it.

 

No matter how hard you try, you can't save yourself.  You're not immortal in yourself.  Every dime you spend on stuff here will eventually be worthless.  But you can save others.  Yes, you can save others.  Every person in middle class America is concerned with the struggle, but there isn't one.  Every Christian is concerned with God's will, but if you were really concerned about God's will, you'd help the people who really needed help.  You would witness.  You would care for the sick and the needy, and quite frankly, very few of you have scratched the surface of what that means.  Neither have I.

 

I'm the greatest hypocrite among you.  Why?  I've had everything handed to me from birth with very little bad experience and still managed to totally screw things up.  But God, in His infinite wisdom, had a plan.  You see, every bad thing you've been through had a purpose.  You ask God why, but the answer is a clear as day.  You cry at your church that your friends are going to hell, but you haven't done one thing to lift an ounce of suffering from the collective dying.  You whine and complain to God that your relationships aren't good enough, that that guy/girl you dated dumped you and that was unfair.  WELL, get over it.  Yeah, that's right: get over it.  I'm mean because I can be.  I'm controversial because I have to be to get your attention, and I'm getting your attention because the church is dying.  Screw this well my church is gaining more members crap!  It's just shifting from church to church because your parents (or you) can't deal with the fact that there are people in the world who get fired for being stupid.  The church is dead, and it's been that way for a while.

 

Wake up.  Who is hungry?  Who is needy?  Wake up, Chris Harrelson.  Wake yourself up.  You've been sleeping for a long time.  Think twice the next time you buy that cd, or that dvd, or that pair of shoes.  Think, "Where else could I spend this money?"  Think, "Who really needs this?"  To whom could you give your time?  For whom could you clean?  Who could you save?

 

Save others...because you can not save yourself... 

So far, my schedule's had classes added twice, and I seemed to have done pretty well.  Unfortunately, I get this great feeling of being overwhelmed even when I'm not so that I'm stressed out over what is, essentially, unknown and, probably, not as difficult as I think will be.  It's learning to balance such ideas as contentment and caution with where I am that's proven so tedious a task after what I've been through the past three years.

 

But God is so good, and, at moments like the Ramp on Thursday, He reminds me that I'm not alone, that He's gone before me, and that He knows of what I need even before I ask.  It's these times that the quiet times are more precious than anything else.

For the three people who'll actually read this post, the one that comments will probably say something to the effect of "Suck it up, and introduce yourself."  However, I'm not necessarily asking for advice, or a critique, but rather for somewhere to be heard.  Blogging is probably one of the dumber things for people to do.  Most of the time, people gripe about their own problems day and day out, and after dealing with depression, I decided to stay away as much as possible from that kind of thinking/posting.

I just feel that none of the relationships I have have any intimacy--that is, not the physical kind--to the extent I keep looking for relationships to fill the gaps of ones gone by, especially at Lee.  But with my scars from depression, I feel I've gained an even more unsightly and ungainly characteristic of added self-consciousness combined with a lack of confidence.  Introductions are awkward, and even if they aren't, they're usually followed by my brand of humor in the attempt to entertain someone into liking me.  People have noticed the entertainer being successful, but where are those people who've been entertained?  I feel lonely most of the time, like I just keep giving and giving without any hope of return, unrequited love for the masses as it were.  You might criticize me for my lack of action, but I have tried.  I am trying to break in.  I just need a way to stay there.

I want to ask you all a favor.  Please pray for me that I will be diligent in God's will.  Support me with your songs to God.

I'm not dating for a year, or possibly longer.  If you want to know why and have my number, you can just call me.  Otherwise, you can private message me, I guess, and I might answer you.

HBO is showing a documentary titled "White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" this week (at least for the past two days).  If you can, I strongly suggest you see it.  The filmmakers interview several Japanese survivors of the destruction of the two atomic bombs.  It's an amazing, touching movie.

For all of you who didn't get the memo, I don't condone dogfighting, cockfighting, or any other kind of forced animal fighting.  But I am a libertarian, so by definition, I believe that less government is better.  That would naturally extend to animal rights laws.  If an animal has the status of "property", it's the owner's rights to do with that property as they wish.  The lamp example is not meant to discount the suffering capacity of animals, but to explain a similar scenario in which property can be misused in a similar moral infraction and our natural reaction.  The government shouldn't legislate a particular brand of morality.

 

For anyone who strongly disagrees, I'd invite to go to youtube and watch "Meet Your Meat".  Now, if PETA were in charge, what would the result be based on moral legislation? 

In response to your remark, because the Constitution says that all men are created equal, and not all species, slavery is illegal.  Some slaves were treated quite well, but with slavery, treatment wasn't the issue.  Rather, we came to agree--While forcibly, it was rightly so--that colored people, being people, had the same rights as the white people in rule at that time.  It's not a question of treatment of property, but status.  Dogs have a property status: men and women don't.
The other argument you had is commonly used by the PETA crowd--that animals suffer and therefore should be morally immune from certain treatment.  First of all, how do you know when an animal suffers and exactly how it does?  I mean, you could guess, but you would never really know because you could never thoroughly communicate with the animal.  Second, why give preferential treatment to dogs?  Cockroaches feel, theoretically, and by your argument should be granted the same treatment.  However, no sane person likes cockroaches: they're vermin.  Same with rats.  Rats carry disease, defecate frequently, and scatter pieces of trash.  Likewise, they feel, but no sane person loves rats.  So if we agree that some species deserve elimination or serious restriction, what basis are we arguing from that says one species feels more than another?  It's simply subjective morality.

There seems to be some tendency to try to "humanize" animals.  You'll hear voice-overs on some animal show explaining the details of how chimps (or such the like) are so amazingly close to humans.  But even if you believe in Evolution, you have to agree that chimps are nowhere close.  They haven't built cities; they haven't begun wars; and they really can't consider the implications of their actions.  They certainly have compared and contrasted their intellect with other species or have begun to synthesize their own brains.  Do dogs feel bad when they attack a human?  When tigers eat little children do they stop and think should I do this?  It's not considerably evident if they do.

I started this post knowing I'd probably get some flack for it, but the opposition (namely, veganism), however well-meaning, seems terribly misguided. 

Let's say I bought a lamp for $100.00. While you think my money could probably have been spent better elsewhere, you understand that I have a right to use my money for whatever I want.  Now, I take this lamp to my house for the specific purpose of dropping it from a ladder.  Well, that would be dumb, now wouldn't it?  After all, wastefulness is a moral infraction.  But it's my right, for it is my property.  So I do it anyway.  Would you call the cops and imprison me for destroying my property, or would you respectfully disagree and maybe consider pursuing another friendship--especially one less stupid?

 

Why is Michael Vick's alleged dogfighting ring any different?  They paid for the dogs involved.  Sure, it's a stupid expenditure, but I'm sure we all have those.  I don't agree with dogfighting, but I feel like people have the right to do with their property as they so choose.

...is to realize you might not ever be able to solve it.  I don't think I can say it any better than that.  We must hobble around on the crutch of mercy and grace because mercy and grace is what we need, even when we feel self-sufficient.  The pain we suffer and the mistakes we make are not necessarily a tangent, but a part of the main life experience.  Hope ya'll understand...

A lot of things have been running through my mind lately.  A lot of things.  In fact, you could almost say that this week's been sorta depressing just due to all my concerns.  I am excited about getting back to school; but, the closer the thought comes to being a reality, the more my residual fears creep back to haunt whatever it is I'm doing.  I just have a lot of anxiety...and a lot--you guessed it--of Why God?'s.  It never fails: one good moment tossed away into oblivion by the casual thought or fantasy, whether actually good or bad.  But I'm trying.  Those times in Appointed lying face down on the floor in the presence of God help.

 

I hope to someday understand God like those men of the Bible like Enoch, Elijah, Moses, and David...and Jesus, of course.  I want to attain that level of faith.  Right now, I'm stuck on old things, not even bad things, just old.  I want to know what things will carry on and what won't, as well as why.  Why God do I have still have these feelings?  Why God can I just let it go?  What do I focus on God?  I need Your help and Your wisdom to guide me.

 

BTW, Randy, that part of the poem means something a little differently than what it seems to say. 

All you who tease me
Never once think to please me,
But maybe that's the problem.
I'm Fatuously romantic,
A rotunda, great hall of emptiness,
Lost hopes and dreams.
That other person beside
My pillow, arms around me,
Give me a reason to sing.
I don't care about "God's will";
I just need someone to touch me,
And be honest and clear.
Let me know your intention,
Innocence fragile bloom.

We're all doomed to attraction,
But what about loneliness attrition?
I don't need your sex.
I just want your wanting to be with me.

So I'm not much of a pop punk fan, what with bands like Fall Out Boy and Silverstein not being particularly creative or fastidious (especially with some of FOB's live shows).  That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the hot chick every now and then.  Paramore's lead woman Hayley Williams fits the bill in both aspects

 

"Gentlemen, behold!" 

 

 

Falling on my knees in worship,
Giving all I am to seek Your face,
Lord, all I am is Yours.
My whole life I place in Your hands.
God of mercy, humbled, I bow down
In Your presence, at Your throne.
I called, You answered,
And You came to my rescue.
And I want to be where You are.
In my life, be lifted high.
In our world, be lifted high.
In our love, be lifted high.

God, why do you anger me?
Why do you keep things from me?
Help me understand my own ways;
Help me understand Your ways.

For years, I've fostered anger,
But in recent months, left it to You;
Do You bring it back to me?

God, why do you frustrate me?
God, why does my second-greatest sin
Become compounded with events
You alone control?
Why do You tell me things
By which I should not be distracted,
Yet raise them up against me
To my own humiliation?

Why are these people in my life?
Why are those people absent?
What plan prepares a way
Such as the way the present seems?

I have so many questions for You
That You know, that you hold;
Why do You not answer?
Why do You hide Yourself from me?

Or have I hid myself from You?

I've stayed for Your presence,
But situations fell upon me.
In my weakness, I fell upon
The sackcloth and the ashes
In my shame and under Your watch.

Have you abandoned me, O God?

God, why are these in my path?
Are they distractions? Are they promises?
You hold my life in Your palm,
But do You want to crush me?

God, come and rescue me;
Be a source of light in my life.
Be my shield and my friend.
Be a mentor and admonish me
To walk in Your ways,
And against the world's ways.

 

Please explain to me Your plan;
Give me clues to Your will.
I lack faith, and I lack trust.
Please, God, remind me of Your promises.

In Jesus' name, Amen

So lately, my younger sister and I have started watching this anime series "Death Note," and honestly, it's turning out to be one of the best anime series I've seen, despite the lack of drawn-out fighting.  It's really surpassed my expectations.  Ya'll should check it out if you're into anime at all.  I watch it a veoh (like youtube, but better).

Planned Parenthood is threatening to sue a college student because she taped a conversation with PP as she posed as a 15 year-old impregnated by a 23 year-old (a reportable statutory rape) and was advised to lie about her age.  Just google "Planned Parenthood UCLA," and you'll see what I mean.  What morons...

Well, it's another apologetic explanatory time, although I'm not sure the people who need to hear these words the most will listen.  But here's the deal: I'm imperfect and have long admitted to that fact.  And then there's God's love and His peace which passes all human understanding.

Most of you Bible readers out there are probably familiar with the story of the wicked servant--you know, the one that owes the king millions of dollars.  Likewise, you know, that upon begging for forgiveness to the king, the servant gets his debt expunged from the record.  Then he turns and incarcerates someone who owes him mere pennies.  The other servants tell the king about this, and the wicked servant faces judgment.  It's one of the best parables in the Bible, and it gives us a clear understanding of how we should be gracious of the mercy given to us.

Fast-forward to today, where I read these words...

For the record, he's not my friend. The last time I talked to him, he

suggested dumping my crying baby in a trashcan so he wouldn't have to
be quiet at my in-laws' house. I don't care how much nicer he gets; I'm
never going to like him, I'm never going to respect him, and I'm never
going to consider him a friend.


I get a little snippy when it comes to my child.

People may take this entire post the wrong way, but it really doesn't matter.  This comment comes at a very peculiar time in my life, one in which I'm trying so desperately to learn how to forgive others, and myself.

A few years ago, I heard a rumor; I heard specifically from someone's mouth that my friend was sleeping in the same bed with his girlfriend at the time.  I wondered about it, and I resolved to ask the friend himself.  First serious, he explained to me how it did not seem wrong to sleep in the same bed with a woman with whom he was not married.  After all, he assured me that nothing physical had gone on, and much more, he admonished me not to slip about it in front of his parents.  Still, he wanted peace, and I granted it foolishly.  However, I did warn him to be very careful.  He agreed.

A few months later, things were bumpier and getting worse for me.  In a practice for a ensemble, this same friend became sullen with some news.  He was going to be the father of child his girlfriend was carrying.  Knowing our customs in the Assemblies of God, it came as a shock to some possibly, but I remained silent.  They married, and things seemed to fly smoothly for them from my perspective.

He told a mutual friend of ours that he wanted to make sure that I was positive he did not lie.  His girlfriend and he were not doing anything at the time I spoke to him.  He even got around to telling me once.  Instead of exposing my feelings about the situation, my tongue lay dormant, a rare occurence.

I've thought, even through all I've been through, what a slap in the face. Especially now, when some of my high school friends won't even talk to me after bearing their souls to me only two years ago, I felt the sting of someone who called me his friend but did not listen to me in the least.  How much more when I call him after all this time to be told in a mostly genial conversation that I'm hardheaded above all things did these thoughts frustrate me!  So I prayed to God to help me forgive others!

Now, I say a lot of stupid things, and at times today, I had evil desires to show that friend what I was made of, telling him of that hurt.  Lord willing, I'll always keep those thoughts to myself and will pray for forgiveness when needed.  I must forgive.  God must become greater in my life than any problem I have or any wrong others have done to me.  When rage comes, I must subdue it under the authority of an Almighty God.  I'm serious.  If you readers only knew the anger I've kept, you would hardly speak to me, but I'm saying that I must control all of that.

I've said some stupid things.  She's right: I did suggest that her baby be thrown in a dumpster.  How imposing I thought at the time that he and she with their sick child come to a place where they knew a substantial group of people would be.  Even if for family's sake, they could have come later or kindly asked us to move.  Instead, we received harsh words for being too loud, which seemed fairly relative at the time.  So, in my anger, I said something harsh, sarcastically belittling her frustration that she couldn't make her child's sickness magically disappear, what any loving parent wishes for.

The problem with anger is that it assumes too much on one end while knowing too much on the other.  We know our feelings about such and such and assume the other person's just attacking us.  But that's not the case, especially in this case.  I would have attacked anyone who came through that door angry with the people in the room.  Heck, I was angry at the world at the time and also with myself.  I could go into a further explanation but I hope this should suffice.

I'm sorry for what I said.  It was said in the heat of the moment to be semi-clever to mask feelings of general hostility waging war within myself.  I ask for your forgiveness and your husband's as well.  I also forgive you both for what misunderstandings we've had.

These words are the truth, and I can do no less.

This post is in rebuttal to an argument posted by Sarah Yeldell on her website, onto which I stumbled a few days ago.  Her words are in italics.

While I didn't to go into detail with this argument, having only commented briefly on her site, I feel I probably should, for she seemed to misinterpret my first comment.  Also, I did it to prove a point, that often, people place responsibility into the government's hands that it is simply ill-equipped or inefficient at doing, if it can at all.  Every time something bad happens in the world, the people want the great judge to preside over all and change things so that bad things won't happen again when the government simply can't change fundamentally flawed human behavior.  Instead, we have created a government that places unreasonable, expensive expectations that stifle creativity in free markets and intrude into people's personal lives, cutting off their freedom for the "good" of all—or better yet, in reality, the good of the few elite.  In the end, this kind of thinking is ignorant idealism in a world where bad things happen and where life simply isn't fair.

One other point I'd like to make before I start is that statistics are only as good as the conclusions you draw from them.  I can selectively choose the statistics I want to prove my point, but I refuse.  I also refuse to see only one side of a percentage to make a glib judgment call with far-reaching effects that I may not see at the time.  You must see that your own perspective greatly influences any statistic you use.

When it comes to guns, I find myself firmly against American civilians owning and possessing firearms.

AKA I want the government to legislate away gun ownership so that we are forced to rely on them even more for things we need and end up paying more money than we should for it.

I guess I have ask, "And then what?"  Do you not believe serious changes would have to be made, such as additional police? You have to see beyond to the ramifications of such a decision.
Furthermore, why can't they? 

It's unjust to regulate all of America on the problems of a few,
yet according to your own statistics and words, that's what you want to do.

I wasn't always. My father taught me how to shoot and I've even contemplated buying a gun of my own at one time or another. But as I've gotten older, I just can't seem to see the sense in it. Logically, it just doesn't add up.

I'm sure someone who has defended themselves with a firearm would disagree.

Does your father believe in gun ownership rights?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

"My gun is for self-defense."

In my experience, this is the most common argument made for owning a gun. Self-defense sounds fairly reasonable (and oh so satisfying), and sometimes it even happens.

Not only that, but self-defense is a realistic possibility.
The other most common argument for owning a gun is that the founding fathers believed in it enough to write it in the Constitution.

According to the US Department of Justice, between 1987 and 1992, an average of 22,000 victims (including police officers) per year defended themselves against a criminal who also had a firearm. Another 61,000 per year defended themselves against offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms. That's 83,000 people per year who successfully or unsuccessfully used their gun in an attempt defend themselves, their family, and/or their property. (Stats)

In crimes that were reported.  Also, it's helpful to note that USDOJ BJS started to completely redesign its methodology in 1992, but it claims to have adjusted for the figures before that time for the new methodology.  Also, I've found other sources that disagree with
those numbers.  In 1994, the USPOF conducted a survey in which it found that 44 million Americans owned guns (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt).  It also concluded that defensive gun uses were hard to calculate and that the numbers it received were more than likely wrong due to contradictions with other evidence (its study calculated 1.5 million DGUs per year, an improbable number compared to the amount of actual crime).

But the number of gun owners in the United States of America is estimated at around 80 million.

By whom?  The NRA?  The USDOJ?  I mean, who's doing the estimating and how?  Do they all own them legally?  How many of them committed a felony and were still able to purchase the gun?

So, by the USDOJ statistics, only 0.1% or so of gun owners have actually employed their firearm for defense.

Never mind the prevention of crime possibly caused by gun ownership or the knowledge thereof.  Never mind the numerous places where guns are banned so that, even if a legal person wanted to use one in self-defense, they probably couldn't.  Never mind that firearm-related crime experienced all-time lows between 1993 and 2005 (from the same site) for some unknown reason (possibly because USDOJ actually started crunching numbers correctly after 1992).  Finally, never
mind that, in 1992, approximately 50 out of every 1,000 people were the victims of a violent crime, crimes that could have been prevented if the victim had had a gun.

Another consideration is, who is being hurt most by gun ownership?

You mean another biased consideration.  You never intended to explore the advantages.

Between 1999 and 2001, the USDOJ reports that 161,569 were intentionally killed by guns (homicide).

I think you added the wrong numbers.  According to the site, the number of homicide deaths by guns between 1999 and 2001 is actually 33,570, much different from the number you gave.  Also, the number of suicides in that same period is 50,054.  I'm thinking you added more years than just 1999 to 2001, for the whole chart spans 1991 to 2001.  The number of total homicides during that period is approximately 52,500 (averaging 7 per 100,000 per year with a population of 250 million).  So total, the number of gun owners who have used their guns for homicide successfully in that period of time is close to 0.07% (from your quoted number), which is smaller than that percentage of people who used their guns for defense from 1987 to 1992.  In other words, your argument's prepotency is being nullified. Additionally, it's really not a correct procedure to compare statistics from 1987 to 1992 to ones from 1999 to 2001, unless you assume the 0.1% is consistent for a decade.

In that same time period, 196,113 people committed suicide using a firearm. People possessing guns were killing themselves more than they were killing other people. This, of course, doesn't include accidental deaths. (Stats)

Again, you have the wrong number for the time period, and accidental deaths by firearms adds very little to 50,054; in fact, the number of accidental deaths by firearms from 1999 to 2001 is 2,042, 0.003% of total gun owners.  Number of suicides comprises 0.06% of gun owners.  Either way, from 1999 to 2001, more people killed other people than people killed themselves with a firearm.  According to WHO (http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf), the number of suicides in 2000 was about 26,000.  According to the USDOJ site, the number of those caused by firearms was 16,586, which is about 2/3 of the total number, assuming both sources' numbers are congruent.While it remains true that the majority of homicides and suicides in this country occur via firearm, none of these statistics proves one thing one way or the other in the issue of whether to ban guns.  There are simply too many other variables to consider.

For instance, how many crimes were perpetrated by handgun-carry permit holders with their firearm actually involved?  How many crimes involving firearms period also involved someone who obtained illegally or outside the process of state gun control laws?  What effect has the price of guns (about $400+ per gun) had on crime: in other words, has the market not curbed much of the crime by cost alone, especially in poorer areas where crime is more prevalent?

Also, your bias prevents you from seeing that the far majority of gun owners use their guns responsibly, and I would say it's a fair bet to say the majority of those who use them irresponsibly obtained them through illegitimate means.

You also act as if suicide is somehow expedited by guns, when suicide is a completely different matter altogether.  The solution to mental illness includes medical changes—better, cheaper health and less bureaucracy (doctor shifts) and less humiliation—as well as cultural changes—holding those who propagate paranoia accountable and helping people recognize warning signs.  Guns are often chosen because they are quick and painless, but banning guns will not solve suicide across the board.

To be sure, I'll fight anyone who ever threatens me or mine (I'm no pacifist), but the likelihood of me ever needing to use a gun is low.

Well, it's equal to the chances of your being victimized in a crime.

The likelihood of getting to wherever it is stored (whether loaded or unloaded) in time to any good is lower.

With the numerous laws prohibiting people's carrying guns, how can you say this with a straight face?  This is a chicken and egg argument (Which came first?) gun control or gun ban advocates pose as a detractor, when they themselves caused it, not the presence of guns in society.  They caused responsible people to have to store away their own guns: you can't use this particular issue to argue your case, when your case wanted such gun control laws in the beginning.  In this sense, gun control advocates are begging the question: they are arguing that a circumstance they create is proof enough to further their conclusion.  Responsible people aren't going to risk trying to break the law so that, if you enforce laws to ban guns from certain areas, the only ones listening are the responsible people!The possible pros don't come close to outweighing the cons.

You haven't come close to making a justifiably thorough side-by-side comparison!

"If you outlaw guns, the only people who will have them will be the
criminals!"

Maybe, but currently most violence is carried out without a weapon. Between 1993 and 2001, 65.9% of non-lethal violence and 26.6 % of lethal violence was carried out without a weapon of any kind. By comparison, only 9.5% of non-lethal and 3.8% of lethal violence was carried out using a gun. That's 5,863,750 crimes committed without a weapon of any sort, as compared to 846,950 committed by gun-wielding criminals.

I believe it's kinda ironic how this paragraph actually serves to deflate your argument further and contradict your earlier and later arguments.  To me, this information states several things.  First, guns are doing much less bad than we think.  Second, the alleged all-access pass to firearms right now for criminals is not as bad as gun control advocates would have us believe.  Third, more law-abiding citizens' circumstances would definitely be improved by the ability to carry a gun in any violent crime.

If guns were only available illegally, it's hard to believe that number would go up. (Stats)

That's the problem.  You don't realize the impact a law will have until it comes around full circle.  The knowledge that no good citizen has a gun may galvanize would-be criminals.  You have no proof to justify your last statement in this paragraph.  You could take, for instance, the impact of marijuana on society as well as since the beginning of its illegalization and the "war on drugs," as well as the impact on its price, accessibility, and potency.  Or you could just use prohibition.  I doubt either will suit your purpose.

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

I couldn't agree more. But I don't understand fighting for the right for people to kill other people faster and more efficiently.

According to your statistics, criminals don't follow your logic.  They're not killing people faster and more efficiently.

When was the last time someone burst into an office or a school and bludgeoned thirty people to death in ten minutes with a baseball bat?

This example's beside the point.

Outlawing guns might not do a lot for one-on-one violence, but it would significantly reduce the number of casualties in crowd situations. Today, if you want to kill a lot of people, you go home, get your guns, drive down to the mall/office/school and open fire.

How many massacres occur in a year?  How many "crowd situations" ever occur?  How many crowd situations occurred in places where guns are prohibited?

Without guns, people would still find ways to kill large numbers of other people, but why give them the option of a firearm?

Wow, that's amazing: you just pointed out your argument's own flaw.  They would find other ways of killing people, such as a bomb (or several), which aren't that difficult to make to destroy a bus filled with people.Also, firearms exist: criminals have had that option since their invention and refinement.  The only people we would take away the option from are the law-abiding citizen.

Why make it easy for them?

We aren't.   You are, for reasons I've already reiterated.

"Guns are fun!"

Yes, they are. I think it has to do with our reverence of violence. There's just something about firing a gun that makes you feel good. But there are a lot of fun activities out there that don't involve pretending to KILL things. Maybe we should focus on those instead?

Keeping that in mind, why don't we ban guns from television, or video games, or even from speech?

"Hunting is fun!"

You know I worry about a culture where we feel compelled to watch things die. I worry about a culture where killing things is thought to be fun. Hunting isn't a necessity, it's a hobby, and really, killing things should never be a hobby.

It's not a necessity…anymore.  How people use their guns legally is really none of your concern.  I hate cats, but I'm not going prohibit people from owning them.

"You don't need to worry about the law-abiding citizens."

My friend killed his wife, their friend, and then himself using his legally purchased firearm, a gun he bought for self-defense. When he bought his gun, he wasn't crazy, he wasn't a criminal, he wasn't someone the system would have caught.

What about 9/11?  And quite frankly this isn't even a crowd situation: he probably could've done the same amount of damage with something else.  Again, banning guns isn't the solution to mental illness.

The idea that gun control works is laughable, because how can you know when someone might be pushed past their breaking point?

And here your personal experience totally sways your argument, especially since so few gun owners are "pushed past their breaking point," statistically.

How can you know whether or not your law-abiding citizen (or their child) will do something unlawful? There is no way the law can do anything but react after someone commits a crime.

How would that change after you ban guns?

There's no legal gun violence prevention aside from banning guns entirely. (Article)

What does that even mean?

I know outlawing guns isn't an option, but I'm not sure why that is. It seems obvious that the pros of guns are far outweighed by the cons.

Been there, argued that….

So why, as a nation, are we so enamored with them? The sole purpose of a firearm is to kill something. Why do we want to keep them?

It's necessary that we have a few for an organized militia, even you believe that.  It's freedom that civilians have them.  Since when has the nation been enamored with them? According to that USPOF study, the number of gun owners was on the decline in 1994.  I don't see us being enamored, unless you want censor out guns from entertainment.

Is it because, as a culture, we LIKE death? Is it because, as a country, we want the option of killing our neighbors open to us? Why?

More pseudo-philosophical nonsense.  This is about freedom to defend on your terms.

Under scrutiny, your arguments just don't add up to the same conclusion when you change your presuppositions on the matter.  It's unfair and unjust to hold society as a whole accountable for the misdeeds of a few.

Another question I have is how would someone go about enforcing a total gun ban?  What would be the penalty for gun possession, or gun sale?

For as long as I've "blogged," I've always assumed that I'm really the only reading what I've written.  Every now and again, I'll get a remark, especially after something controversial, but nothing I've written has been consistently remarked, especially since I have had a vice of making/breaking relationships.

But this post is a sort of description...of me...with one statement:

I am not the same person I was a year ago.


Things aren't true because someone asserts them: they must have proof.  And likewise, I give you myself as that proof.  Your prayers, if you had any for me in the will of God, have been answered.  In fact, read my posts from a year ago and you'll see.  Of course, I still struggle with things, but I'm not the same person.  God has changed me: I believe that with all my heart.

In the same way, I believe that God is faithful to do the same work in you all that He has done and continues to do in me.  I came back to this area and found that many people I loved were in bad situations--bad spiritually, bad emotionally, bad physically, bad socially, bad what-have-you--and I was crushed by that fact.  I asked God why, but I know this same work, the work of which I'm testimony, can occur in your lives if you let it.  Also, I know that conquering these issues will provide a clear reason as to why you are having bad experiences now.
There are specific people I could name, people who, without just cause, have become ensnared or trapped by the enemy, the world, or even themselves, but I won't name these individuals.  I just hope that you won't let past sins (whether yours or someone else's) destroy your future.  God has a plan for your life, a plan of victory, if you would take and make it your own.  Thank you for reading...

So, it turns I'm helping my little sister with her drama solo, and it's harder than it looks.  While badgering her to memorize the skit solidly, I fear that I won't be able to guide her in the right direction.  The biggest issue, right now, is editing and adding motions to the drama enough to involve the audience throughout the entire drama.  I think we can do well though.

And He will answer my prayers for those of you for whom I've interceded.  Even those I've forgotten, may God bless you and grant you peace.