June 3, 2012
Daniel Gould to Jim Driscoll
It is amazing and so ironic that you are defending gun ownership though you have never fired one and, me, a marksman with a rifle and shotgun should be supporting strict gun laws. But in a sense it does make sense in that I know what guns can do and have an understanding of human nature while you are ignorant of these matters.
As to your accusation that I am doing the same thing as the "religious set" by "imposing your beliefs about guns on everyone else" well, now, this is an example of comparing apples to oranges. When people of the religious bent try to impose their beliefs on me regarding several matters, I say they do NOT have the right. Who is the arbiter on what their God has to say? Religious positions have established laws---or have tried to---on a woman's say over her body; justifying capital punishment as something sanctioned by the Bible---an eye for an eye---to Sunday blue laws that prohibit the sale of any alcoholic drink on a Sunday. But I DO support laws that say you can't drive your Porsche at 150 mph; drink and drive; you must wear a seat belt; no talking on the cell when driving. These laws are acceptable because it is for the common good not to mention your own.
YOu may argue that it should be your decision as to how fast you can drive your car, "I am an excellent driver. I know how to do so safely." This is the a gun lovers argument, "I know how to handle a weapon." But in each case there are the unanticipated variables: A tire blow-out at speed; you come home to find your partner in bed with a friend of yours. Neither is anticipated. The former may lead to your death and the latter to the death of the intruding lover. You act without thinking and immediately. If there is no gun in the house there may be a verbal argument or even a fight, but both parties walk away from it.
Some people---many, in fact---have a need for a God. I am not trying to prevent them from fulfilling it; I only insist that your beliefs not interfere with my rights. But there is NO need for guns aside from the fact that it is a phallic symbol to many. Your position is that the "world we have live in has changed". Of that there can be no doubt. And because of those changes, whether it is the new and impersonal society where your neighbors ignore you and you ignore them, where drug use is rampant thus making, in many incidents, conditions exponentially greater that a gun will be used only reinforces my position. You argue that owning a gun is a deterrent to some breaking into your home. This is poor logic. You are assuming the criminal knows you have a gun. How do they know that? ESP? And even now when nearly everyone does have a gun there has been no decrease in home invasions. This, of course, is the same with those that preach that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. In fact, in many cases it is the reason for the murder: "The victim will be able to identify me. I better take him out". This was the logic used by Gary Gilmore when he killed a gas service attendant over a robbery that netted him less than $20. When will we ever learn?
As to some of these laws that have limited our "freedom" when it comes to driving they seem to have had an influence on the number of highway deaths which have decreased dramatically since their introduction. But the murder rates keeps going up. Strange isn't it? More people with guns, more murders. When we live in a community there are rights that we surrender for the common good. This is what a democracy is all about. I recently accused you of being an anarchist. Well, you certainly fit the definition. Sorry, son. You are WRONG about people having a right to own a gun.
June 3, 2012
Jim Driscoll to Daniel Gould
MANY OF THE "BELIEFS" I ADHERE TO , WHILE THEY MAY SEEM TO HAVE A
RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION, ACTUALLY DO NOT. EG: I BELIEVE, IN SOME
EXTREME CASES, IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. I CITE NO BIBLE CONTEXT IN THIS
BELIEF. YOU SEEM TO ASSUME THAT, JUST LIKE YOU ASSUME A LOT OF THINGS.
THE CRIMINAL MAY NOT KNOW THE HOMEOWNER HAS A GUN (EXCEPT MAYBE IN
TEXAS!), BUT IT IS THAT IGNORANCE THAT CAN BE HELPFUL IN INHIBITING
I DO NOT TRY TO PUSH GOD OFF ONTO YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. YOU HAVE EVERY
RIGHT TO NOT HAVE ANY FAITH. I THINK IT IS A HUGE OVERSIGHT IN YOUR
BELIEF SYSTEM, BUT IT IS YOUR RIGHT. SO, WHEN SOMEONE SEEMS TO THROW
HIS BELIEF SYSTEM AT YOU ON SOME RELEVANT ISSUE, EVEN IF IT IS BASED IN
PART ON HIS FAITH, IT DOES NOT MEAN HE IS PUSHING THAT FAITH ONTO YOU.
YOU SEEM TO BE A LITTLE SENSITIVE IN THAT AREA. EG: I OPPOSE
ABORTION, EXCEPT IN THE CASE WHERE THE CHILD ENDANGERS THE MOTHER. NOW,
THAT MAY BE PARTLY BECAUSE OF MY BELIEF SYSTEM, OR JUST PART OF MY
MORAL CONVICTION OF THE RIGHT TO THE LIFE OF A CHILD. BUT...IN
DISCUSSING MY SIDE OF THAT ISSUE, I AM NOT TELLING YOU THAT I AM RIGHT
AND YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE OF MY BELIEF IN GOD. YOU SEEM TO BE
RE: GUNS, THE OLD ADAGE APPLIES....GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL
PEOPLE. BY YOUR LOGIC, MAYBE WE SHOULD OUTLAW ALL KITCHEN KNIVES, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ALL BRIDGES SO PEOPLE CAN'T JUMP OFF OF THEM, THE
ABILITY OF MFG'S TO PRODUCE CARS THAT GO OVER 30 MPH ETC,
LIKE A GOOD LIBERAL, YOU DISDAIN THE CONCEPT OF PERSONAL
RESPONSIBILITY IN ALL OF YOUR REBUTTALS. WHY IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
WRONG, I ASK, AS AN EXAMPLE??? IF MURDER, IE, IS A CASE FOR CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT, AND THE KILLER KNOWS THIS, AND DECIDES TO KILL ANYWAY, WHAT
IS SO WRONG WITH THE PUNISHMENT, IF THE GUILT IS IRON CLAD (& NOT BASED
JUST ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE) ?? ARE WE BEING UNJUST IN THIS
INSTANCE....TO HIM? CHANGE THE CIRCUMSTANCE, AND MAKE HIS VICTIM YOUR
CHILD, OR OTHER LOVED ONE. WHERE WOULD YOU STAND THEN??? SURE, THE
BIBLE SAYS "AN EYE FOR AN EYE", BUT I'M NOT QUOTING ANY BIBLE HERE.
AGAIN, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY HERE...THAT YOU AGAIN IGNORE. WHY?
BECAUSE HE CAN BE REHABILITATED? SO WHAT? MAYBE HE CAN. BUT WHAT
ABOUT THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE INSIDIOUS CRIME???????? I HEAR THIS SO
OFTEN, ESP. UP HERE IN CANADA. HE'S CHANGED HIS LIFE AROUND. GIVE
HIM A BREAK. SCREW THAT. MAKE HIM DO THE TIME FIRST, OR PAY THE
ULTIMATE PENALTY. I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH HIS REHABILITATION, AT LEAST
NOT ENOUGH TO LESSEN THE PENALTY. WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIM IN ALL OF
THIS? WHAT ARE HIS CHANCES OF BEING EXONERATED FROM HIS FATE?
NONE, MY FRIEND, NONE AT ALL. DO-GOODER LIBERALS, NOT POTENTIAL GUN
LAWS, ARE THE REAL PROBLEM HERE.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MAY NOT DETER CRIME. SO WHAT? THAT'S NOT WHY WE
HAVE IT, ANYWAY....AT LEAST NOT THE PRIMARY REASON. I KNOW....LET'S
GIVE THE KILLER A BREAK, RELEASE HIM EVENTUALLY, AND SET HIM UP IN A
HALF-WAY HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO YOUR FAMILY , OR YOUR SON'S FAMILY. LET'S
SEE HOW YOU REACT TO THAT.