|
Post by sunshine on Feb 8, 2016 15:20:24 GMT -5
Its hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of not owning a gun for protection, no matter what religion you are. I don't live near a city, but it would be just complete stupidity to go into the woods around here to pick berries, or even just for a walk without packing at least a handgun for protection against cougars, bears, wolves, and rattlesnakes. And you better do a lot of target practicing so you're a good shot. Well this is news to me, and many other nature lovers, I'd imagine. I have spent a bit of time in the woods in your country and my safety items consist of a first-aid kit, a PLB and a bear canister for storing my food away from my person. Never once have I required a gun for the purpose of protection from wildlife. I find the idea distasteful. Why on earth would somebody need to kill a rattlesnake in the woods for protection ? Most animals are far more scared of us then we are of them. And you're right about rattlesnakes, once you step over one and it bites you, its too late for any killing of it...you might die instead. And, actually, a gun is pretty useless when trying to hit a rattler at close range, a shovel works a lot better, but harder to carry with you.. Better to watch where you walk...always keep an eye on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Feb 8, 2016 15:23:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 15:35:42 GMT -5
I guess one could argue the 650 babies killed in 2013 in netherlands died with dignity under doctor assisted death, with drugs rather than with a gun. ... Sad to read those stats anout babies killed. ?. Alvin I suppose your are talking here about abortion? If so that would take us quickly off track. If infanticide by a firearm then it would fit, but I doubt there were 650 babies shot in the Netherland last year. But I could be wrong. ... doctor assisted death, with drugs rather than with a gun. Suicide stats in usa i think are fairly high using poisons, so not sure guns are the preferred method or not. Initiaally supporting are having second thoughts on wisdom of legalizing assisted suicide. Alvin This is a great source of information about the causes of death in the USA. www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-genderIt shows poisons is number one for ages 25 to 45, & suicide is the second leading cause of death for both sexes ages 15 to 44. I also see there is about a 5% lifetime suicide attempt rate. archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205075I understand most of those who failed suicide reported they were not thinking clearly at the time. The availability and cost of mental health services needs much improvement in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 8, 2016 18:43:19 GMT -5
In 2013, 650 babies died under Holland’s assisted suicide law because their parents or doctors deemed their suffering too difficult to bear.
I have not done due diligence if the stats are correct in the article I was reading, so thanks for your gracious replies, xna and not really relevant to GUNS, but more about assisted suicide. I was referring to the Royal Dutch Medical Association stats I had read. Alvin
"Although the law was designed to help terminally ill patients have a dignified death, the right to die has also been granted to a growing number of people who are physically healthy but have psychological problems. Official figures show that 13 patients suffering from mental illness were euthanized in 2011; by 2013 this number had risen to 42 patients.
And it is not just adults who are being euthanized. According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association, as many as 650 babies are killed by doctors each year because they are deemed to be in pain or facing a life of suffering."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 8, 2016 19:36:30 GMT -5
In 2013, 650 babies died under Holland’s assisted suicide law because their parents or doctors deemed their suffering too difficult to bear. I have not done due diligence if the stats are correct in the article I was reading, so thanks for your gracious replies, xna and not really relevant to GUNS, but more about assisted suicide. I was referring to the Royal Dutch Medical Association stats I had read. Alvin "Although the law was designed to help terminally ill patients have a dignified death, the right to die has also been granted to a growing number of people who are physically healthy but have psychological problems. Official figures show that 13 patients suffering from mental illness were euthanized in 2011; by 2013 this number had risen to 42 patients. And it is not just adults who are being euthanized. According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association, as many as 650 babies are killed by doctors each year because they are deemed to be in pain or facing a life of suffering." But euthanasia isn't assisted suicide.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 19:40:51 GMT -5
In 2013, 650 babies died under Holland’s assisted suicide law because their parents or doctors deemed their suffering too difficult to bear. I have not done due diligence if the stats are correct in the article I was reading, so thanks for your gracious replies, xna and not really relevant to GUNS, but more about assisted suicide. I was referring to the Royal Dutch Medical Association stats I had read. Alvin "Although the law was designed to help terminally ill patients have a dignified death, the right to die has also been granted to a growing number of people who are physically healthy but have psychological problems. Official figures show that 13 patients suffering from mental illness were euthanized in 2011; by 2013 this number had risen to 42 patients. And it is not just adults who are being euthanized. According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association, as many as 650 babies are killed by doctors each year because they are deemed to be in pain or facing a life of suffering." Here is a 2015 article. www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058026It looks like they follow the Groningen Protocol. It starts out... Requirements that must be fulfilled
The diagnosis and prognosis must be certain
Hopeless and unbearable suffering must be present
The diagnosis, prognosis, and unbearable suffering must be confirmed by at least one independent doctor
Both parents must give informed consent
The procedure must be performed in accordance with the accepted medical standard
From the little I have read on this, and being primarily a moral consequentialist / utilitarian, I am ok with this. Sometimes the best choice is between the least worst choice. All are very sad cases, regardless of any choice made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 19:44:09 GMT -5
In 2013, 650 babies died under Holland’s assisted suicide law because their parents or doctors deemed their suffering too difficult to bear. I have not done due diligence if the stats are correct in the article I was reading, so thanks for your gracious replies, xna and not really relevant to GUNS, but more about assisted suicide. I was referring to the Royal Dutch Medical Association stats I had read. Alvin "Although the law was designed to help terminally ill patients have a dignified death, the right to die has also been granted to a growing number of people who are physically healthy but have psychological problems. Official figures show that 13 patients suffering from mental illness were euthanized in 2011; by 2013 this number had risen to 42 patients. And it is not just adults who are being euthanized. According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association, as many as 650 babies are killed by doctors each year because they are deemed to be in pain or facing a life of suffering." Here is a 2015 article. www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058026It looks like they follow the Groningen Protocol. All are very sad cases, regardless of any choice made. what a clinical mask for murder if I've ever seen one....
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 19:53:38 GMT -5
what a clinical mask for murder if I've ever seen one.... @wally , I edited my post before you replied. When is killing OK, is an important issue that deserves it's own thread. In short, I agree in killing another if it is the only and best choice, and only in some very limited cases. This looks like one of them. On this issue, I depart from most Humanists and probably most atheists on this board.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 8, 2016 20:16:17 GMT -5
what a clinical mask for murder if I've ever seen one.... @wally , I edited my post before you replied. When is killing OK, is an important issue that deserves it's own thread. In short, I agree in killing another if it is the only and best choice, and only in some very limited cases. This looks like one of them. On this issue, I depart from most Humanists and probably most atheists on this board. Do you really think most humanists and atheists disagree with you on that? Seems to me that in some cases euthanasia would be the humanitarian thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 20:41:01 GMT -5
@wally , I edited my post before you replied. When is killing OK, is an important issue that deserves it's own thread. In short, I agree in killing another if it is the only and best choice, and only in some very limited cases. This looks like one of them. On this issue, I depart from most Humanists and probably most atheists on this board. Do you really think most humanists and atheists disagree with you on that? Seems to me that in some cases euthanasia would be the humanitarian thing to do. I normally take flack from my Humanist friends in these cases* when I spell out where I support both doing and allowing harm.Here are some examples; 1*. Killing some people who have done great intentional harms ie. Hitler, Pol Pot, Timothy McVeigh, etc 2. Abortion, in some cases. 3*. Self defense 4*. War 5. End of life assisted suicide
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 8, 2016 20:52:16 GMT -5
We must have the right to die with 'dignity' and avoid life prolonging interventions which undermine quality of life. Despite death being the inevitable outcome for all living beings, humans are a death-avoiding species and this attitude contributes to the belief that the human species can survive death via supernatural assistance. There are unfortunately congenital conditions which condemn an infant to a life of suffering and the only compassionate choice is to either abort the fetus or, if a pre-natal diagnosis is not made: to palliate the infant and in those countries where euthanasia is legal: to take a more decisive and less arduous approach on behalf of the babe. Here is a Memorandum to UK Parliament submitted by a wonderful (now) elderly gentleman who knows that palliative care is not always the solution to the prevention and management of terrible physical and psychological suffering. Please note Prof Maddock's reference to the impact of religion on freedom to choose: " REASONS FOR OPPOSITION TO ASSISTED DYING AMONG PALLIATIVE CARE PRACTITIONERS
5(i) Palliative care advocates have found a particular difficulty in the care of persons who ask for a deliberate and quick release from their situation of protracted dying. 5(ii) The reasons for that difficulty may be found firstly in the Christian traditions of Western society and their emphasis on the sanctity of life as a God-given gift, the ending of which divine providence alone should determine. The medieval monastic origins of the term "hospice", still used for aspects of palliative care programmes, support that tradition, as does the early work of the religious orders such as the Sisters of Charity, or the Little Company of Mary in the 19th century. More recently it has been fostered by the charismatic Christian leadership that has been so important in the establishment of palliative care in the British Isles and that has taught a consistent opposition to assisted dying, something that has become part of the usual advocacy by Palliative Care practitioners throughout the world.Euthanasia and gun-toting murderers are unrelated but just to support xna and I agree with BobWilliston, that the humanist view supports the right to die.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 21:02:42 GMT -5
Euthanasia and gun-toting murderers are unrelated but just to support xna and I agree with BobWilliston , that the humanist view supports the right to die. I edited my post to clarified my cases where I support killing. I find most Humanist are not against abortion, or end of life assisted suicide.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 8, 2016 23:16:41 GMT -5
Assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Vermont and Bernalillo County and New Mexico. Supreme court decision last Friday, in Canada , makes euthanasia legal in Canada, although 12 months needed to write up the new laws. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 9, 2016 1:59:30 GMT -5
Better to watch where you walk...always keep an eye on the ground. I think I like this option best probably safer than the shovel method!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 3:08:39 GMT -5
I am not qualified to provide an informed response to the question raised by the OP, as I have not been a part of The 2x2 Fellowship for about 40 years. That being said, I can share a few recollections of my time being raised in a "professing" rural family that might shed a little light on their attitudes toward firearms. My father's family were dirt farmers in the American mid-west. Firearms were owned by all, and viewed simply as tools, with no special love or affection above any other tool. For some jobs, the firearm was the best tool. Not to say that these jobs couldn't be done with some other tool, just that the firearm happened to be the best. I am an urban citizen, not a rural one, but the farmer's attitude remains within me. I became a tradesman, and I would employ the best tool available for any given task, even though there were other means to accomplish what ever it was I needed to do. For example, if there was a power saw available, I would use that rather than a handsaw. If I had a drill motor with me, I would use it rather that claim that electric drill motors were unnecessary since hand-crank drills could do the same job. Same thing with with hammers; I'd rather use a hammer than my fist or a rock when pounding was needed. My attitude is the same for guns. They are tools, nothing more. Yes, they are dangerous, just like a power saw, you don't leave them laying around for children to play with. But neither do you have a hysterical fear of them. Although getting hit by random gunfire is a possibility, I feel that it is much more likely to be injured or killed by an automobile driven by a person who is texting on their mobile device. Yet we do not hear the public outcry over texting while behind the wheel.
Anyway, back to the 2-bys. My dad was drafted into the US Army just before the US entered WWII, and remained in the military throughout the war. He was granted Conscientious Objector status with the aid of the Christian Conventions letter signed by George Walker. Although he owned firearms back on the farm, he refused to bear arms. I am not entirely sure, and can't ask him since hes gone on, but I think part of the objection was that the government would determine who needed shooting. The soldier had no choice in the matter once he was armed and forced into a combat situation. As a civilian, my dad kept a shotgun, even though he no longer lived on the farm. I think if his domicile was violated by malefactors that dad would have given them a load of buckshot. As was often the case, the 2-bys mixed Old and New Testament as needed. I believe the passage used to justify killing intruders was Exodus 22:2. Briefly, it says that if a thief enters your tent during the daylight hours, he is to be brought up on charges, but if a thief enters your tent after dark and you kill him, you will not be charged with any violation. True, It is no doubt much more likely to be injured or killed by an automobile driven by a person who is texting, but neither a phone nor a car was intended to be a weapon used to kill something as is the whole intention behind the use of a gun.
PS: Yes, there has been the public concern over texting while behind the wheel. Many states, our state is one, that now have laws against texting & driving.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 9, 2016 3:09:45 GMT -5
I am not qualified to provide an informed response to the question raised by the OP, as I have not been a part of The 2x2 Fellowship for about 40 years. That being said, I can share a few recollections of my time being raised in a "professing" rural family that might shed a little light on their attitudes toward firearms. My father's family were dirt farmers in the American mid-west. Firearms were owned by all, and viewed simply as tools, with no special love or affection above any other tool. For some jobs, the firearm was the best tool. Not to say that these jobs couldn't be done with some other tool, just that the firearm happened to be the best. I am an urban citizen, not a rural one, but the farmer's attitude remains within me. I became a tradesman, and I would employ the best tool available for any given task, even though there were other means to accomplish what ever it was I needed to do. For example, if there was a power saw available, I would use that rather than a handsaw. If I had a drill motor with me, I would use it rather that claim that electric drill motors were unnecessary since hand-crank drills could do the same job. Same thing with with hammers; I'd rather use a hammer than my fist or a rock when pounding was needed. My attitude is the same for guns. They are tools, nothing more. Yes, they are dangerous, just like a power saw, you don't leave them laying around for children to play with. But neither do you have a hysterical fear of them. Although getting hit by random gunfire is a possibility, I feel that it is much more likely to be injured or killed by an automobile driven by a person who is texting on their mobile device. Yet we do not hear the public outcry over texting while behind the wheel. Anyway, back to the 2-bys. My dad was drafted into the US Army just before the US entered WWII, and remained in the military throughout the war. He was granted Conscientious Objector status with the aid of the Christian Conventions letter signed by George Walker. Although he owned firearms back on the farm, he refused to bear arms. I am not entirely sure, and can't ask him since hes gone on, but I think part of the objection was that the government would determine who needed shooting. The soldier had no choice in the matter once he was armed and forced into a combat situation. As a civilian, my dad kept a shotgun, even though he no longer lived on the farm. I think if his domicile was violated by malefactors that dad would have given them a load of buckshot. As was often the case, the 2-bys mixed Old and New Testament as needed. I believe the passage used to justify killing intruders was Exodus 22:2. Briefly, it says that if a thief enters your tent during the daylight hours, he is to be brought up on charges, but if a thief enters your tent after dark and you kill him, you will not be charged with any violation. Thank you blacksheep, being a 5th generation B&R in the F&W in Australia, it seems the workers over here had a totally different view. I understand guns on farms, but as far as for self defence for Christians I don't understand. I have never heard verses quoted by workers here to justify having a gun for Self defence. But as you said the 2x2's do mix Old & New Testament as needed !
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 3:15:23 GMT -5
what a clinical mask for murder if I've ever seen one.... Just curious; Wally, what would you think should be done if your wife, mother, sister or close friend had a child born with anencephaly birth defect due the mother's having the Zita virus?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 9, 2016 3:17:57 GMT -5
Better to watch where you walk...always keep an eye on the ground. I think I like this option best probably safer than the shovel method! I find a combination of both works well, especially where people walk their dogs.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 9, 2016 4:08:12 GMT -5
I think I like this option best probably safer than the shovel method! I find a combination of both works well, especially where people walk their dogs. I believe I will miss and invoke the wrath of the serpent. I haven't had dogs approach within striking range.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Feb 9, 2016 8:10:41 GMT -5
If a person has faith in God, why do they need a gun for protection? Don't they think God will take care of his own? Taking this notion a bit further, I wonder how "a person who has faith in God" envisions God's intervention in his time of peril ....It brings to mind an old supposedly humorous story, but really, how humorous is it? A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"I think that God expects us to become more self-reliant as we gain the ability to do so, just as we expect our children to become less dependent on their parents as they grow and mature. There's an old saying "God helps those who help themselves...." to me, that means we have to take the first step. If I need to defend myself, I pull the trigger, and pray that the bullet goes where it needs to. I realize that this does not address the question of "What do the Friends and Workers in the US believe?" (I am not a member). But when I re-read the OP, I find a mixed query therein. The first part of the OP is about the "US F&Ws" specifically, and the second part is regarding "Christians" in general. These are not necessarily one and the same. As to Christians using firearms for self defense, what I find is far worse than that is Christians using firearms in acts of aggression to murder natives and steal their land. Look at the history of Christian colonists the World over.....North America, South Africa, Australia, etc..oh, yes! God wants us to have your home and resources,,,too bad for you non-Christians!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 12:03:40 GMT -5
what a clinical mask for murder if I've ever seen one.... Just curious; Wally, what would you think should be done if your wife, mother, sister or close friend had a child born with anencephaly birth defect due the mother's having the Zita virus?do what they have always done raise the child as best they can till it dies...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Feb 9, 2016 12:28:30 GMT -5
Luke 22:36 (KJV) Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.I wonder if Jesus just wanted them to have swords in order to kill animals for food? I feel this Barnes Commentary best addresses the meaning of this controversial verse found in Luke 22:36.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Feb 9, 2016 12:39:50 GMT -5
Thanks for the above, Faune....that's pretty much the way I read it, too.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Feb 9, 2016 12:55:03 GMT -5
i know you want violence to be just a gun thing but that's simply not the facts of the matter again to think so shows either ignorance or being naïve on the matter... What's your point? What are the "facts of the matter" which you refer to, but don't provide. Knifings, bombs, grenades? They happen, gun crimes track violent crimes very closely, if you'd care to look it up. Here are some interesting stats. Homicides per 100,000 per year USA 3.8 India 3.5 Canada 1.4 UK 1.0 Hong Kong .9 Gun deaths - including accidental deaths and justifiable homicide - per 100,000 per year USA 10.64 Canada 1.97 India .28 UK .23 Hong Kong .03 Yes, in countries like India and Hong Kong, guns are not used in homicides, but their homicide rate is far lower than that of the USA. The big shocker for me is the number of accidental and other gun-related deaths in the USA, which far outstrip homicides. What Hat ~ Thanks for using statistics to prove a point! I live in a gun-happy state, Tennessee, within the U.S.A., which is in the heart of the Bible-belt in the Deep South. In fact, it's usually the evangelical Christians down here from the Far Right that advocate carrying guns wherever you go. Honestly, such fanaticism scares me. In fact, our state has been among the top five states for homicides and violent crimes within the U.S.A. due to this fact in recent years. In fact, after the gun massacre in Newtown, CT, folks were arming themselves even more with automatic repeating rifles sold at Gun Shows down here. Personally, I have no problem with owning a gun for hunting purposes, but who really needs a rapid repeating rifle as a safety precaution. To me, that is an over-kill and can be really dangerous within the wrong hands of mentally unstable and fear-based people. In fact, our state has the statistics to prove this to be a problem here at home. Please note that its the states with the more conservative gun laws compared to those with more strict gun regulations that have the real problem with gun violence in the U.S.A. politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gun-deaths-by-state Graphs ~ Gun Violence by State
247wallst.com/special-report/2014/06/26/231958/ Wallstreet Special Report on Gun Violence in USA (2014)
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 9, 2016 13:29:21 GMT -5
I find a combination of both works well, especially where people walk their dogs. I believe I will miss and invoke the wrath of the serpent. I haven't had dogs approach within striking range. Ellie, I was not referring to the danger at the end where the teeth are but the other end.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Feb 9, 2016 13:54:44 GMT -5
In the United States, here's the 10 states in which most of gun violence and deaths are recorded.
247wallst.com/special-report/2014/06/26/231958/2/ Top 10 States With Most Gun Violence & Deaths
What amazes me about this thread is the IRONY that when it comes to war and bearing arms, the 2x2's have claimed to be CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS since their inception for religious reasons, but when it comes to bearing fire arms for protection purposes, they find no problem with it? For general information, here's a Wiki article regarding the beliefs of Conscious Objectors regarding firearms. Since most conscientious objectors are against guns being used to kill others for religious reasons, here-in lies the irony within the 2x2's. Most likely this is the reason which generated this thread by Roselyn? Any comments?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector Conscientious Objector
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 15:14:18 GMT -5
being in the military and being ordered to kill for some political reason is a little different from killing to protect someone during a home invasion not a real big difference but some nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 9, 2016 16:33:56 GMT -5
If a person has faith in God, why do they need a gun for protection? Don't they think God will take care of his own? Taking this notion a bit further, I wonder how "a person who has faith in God" envisions God's intervention in his time of peril ....It brings to mind an old supposedly humorous story, but really, how humorous is it? I think you missed my point. I was making fun of these Christians who panic when their house catches fire, and then find comfort when they see someone praying while the rafters fall in. They don't really care what happens in the long run, as long as they can say someone prayed. What the heck are they praying for, anyway? That some insurance company will volunteer to replace the loss? Pray pray pray. Buy insurance ahead of time, stupid. I know one lady who was even praying over her neighbor's son when he was deciding whether to join the Boy Scouts or not. It's one thing to give thanks for your food, it's quite another to expect God to take away the Brussel sprouts and replace it them with carrots.
|
|