On guns again

I'm not pretending to be an expert but articles about about gun ownership in the US interest me. Not sure why, maybe I'm just interested to know what other people's views on the subject are. I do personally think guns are not a form of defence but offence, thus those carrying guns are only asking for trouble. But I had a couple of additional thoughts I wanted to share that I had while reading some articles recently.

1. I read that one in the US can legally carry a gun at 21. That's same age you can drink in the US. So then I started to link the two ideas together. A young 21 year old can go out and get a gun in the morning and then buy a drink in the afternoon. While intoxicated can still carry their new gun?

Are there any laws in the US making it illegal to carry a gun while under the influence? If not then there most definately should be. It is illegal to drive under the influence. So when judgement is severely impared and as violent behaviour is associated with alcohol it makes absolute sense to ensure that the safety of another is not compromised because a gun carryier has allowed their judgement to be impared.

Obviously all pro gun advocates will claim to be responsible gun owners. They can demonstrate their responsibility by never holding a drink while also carrying a gun.

2. I also recently read an article about a young woman who put something anti gun on social media, maily as a joke. It soon went viral as there was clearly a lot of support for it. She says in addition to the support she recieved, she also was given abuse and even death threats. Death threats are a clear sign of instability and someone's lack of ability to control themselves. In light of the recent school shootings and pro gun advocates claiming gun laws not being the problem but mental illness it would be totally foolish of any gun owner to make such threats to anyone over something so trivial that is not placing their immediate life in danger.

If any gun owner shows any signs of aggressive behaviour towards another in a situation other than life threatening they should be considered unsuitable to act as one of these gun carrying want-to-be heros. Only the truly responsible should be allowed to act in such a way.

3. I really struggle to believe that in a threatening situation a gun carrier is going to make much of a difference. There are lots of factors to consider, particularly the safety of others surrounding the attacker. There are questions of conscience, about potentially killing another person, and shooting should only be a last resort after negotiation and carefully considering all other options.

It is my understanding that the police who carry guns are extensively trained and are given strict guidelines about when to draw and fire their guns. SWAT teams receive even more training and only engage under certain circumstances. And when an officer does pull the trigger a review and investigation follows.

Are the gun carrying public subject to the same level of training and review process? To drive a car one must pass a test, to carry a murder weapon in public, one should also be expected to pass a test.

It should be accepted that if someone wants to carry a gun with the intention to use it in a life threatening situation to shoot and even kill another, then they should be subject to an in depth investigation where their actions will be scrutinised. To act as judge and executioner in a public or even private space is a massive responsibility and should not be treated lightly.

Maybe gun carriers will think twice if they were to understand that no matter how good their intentions, they could still be prosecuted if, after review, they are considered trigger happy.

More about guns

I've just seen this picture with a funny caption.

How to sneak chocolate into an American cinema.

Obviously it's funny because there is some truth to it. While guns seem to be permitted almost anywhere, you can't take your own food or drink into places like cinemas or theme parks.

I did also read a statement from an American complaining about the Brits who have an opinion on the gun laws in the US. They said our opinion isn't really valid because we live in a country so restricted (the opposite to freedom and liberty) that we can't even fly the Union Jack without fear of offending others. There was also a lot of truth in what she said.

But which community would you rather live in, one with gun control and over the top politically correct policies or one that feels lawless, you have your freedom, but you also live in fear of being shot every day?

America has a gun problem

Late last week there was another mass shooting in the US.

I probably shouldn't have an opinion on this as the whole debate is about a nation that even though we (the UK) are very closely related to on many issues, is thousands of miles away from where I am and still culturally very different. But I need something to read during my lunch break, and I came across this.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222

Pro gun advocates might claim guns are needed in places like schools to act as a deterrent. This article says exactly what I was thinking. They only act as a deterrent if the gunman wants to live, and it would seem that most mass shooters actually expect to die. So the presence of a gun is not going to deter these type of headline atrocities.

I can accept that guns can act as a deterrent but I keep playing out such scenarios in my minds eye. If I had a gun in such a situation, would I draw it? In doing so would I escalate the situation putting even more lives at risk? Would I make myself a target? Would I be confident I could disarm the attacker without harming another? I suspect the carrying of a gun is not anywhere near as effective as people might like to think they are.

I also recognise that there are a lot of other gun related deaths that occur in situations other than mass shootings like home burglary, and in some of these other situations a gun may well be an effective deterrent.

While I'm inclined to favour the tighter gun control side of the argument, I did see a very amusing meme earlier that showed a flip side to the debate.

The meme basically highlighted that Obama, my not carry a gun, but his mini army of agents probably do. So you could call Obama hypocritical.

If someone is going to shoot the president of the United States they will shoot him, no number of gun carrying agents or well intentioned members of the public will be quick enough to stop a bullet with his name on it.

Gus may be a deter ant in some situations, but they are not a defence. A shield is a form of defence. I'm unaware of a shield existing that can stop a bullet. Bullet proof vests protect parts of the body but not the whole body. Without a tool to stop bullets, or nuclear warheads, the other solution is to disarm.

To stop these high profile situations like school shootings, I really do not think more guns is the answer.

Religion at work, day 2.

So just as I thought I wouldn't get to share some of my ideas, it turns out I did get to.

It also turn out that I wasn't the only person thinking about our conversation while driving home last night. And it turns out that some people are interested in the subjunctive and do want to discuss these things, some feel a little uncomfortable though.

Conversation this time was in the middle of the day, so was cut short with necessary work that needed to be done.

I did get to share some of my ideas from my previous post but these things have only generated more thoughts.

When we discussed the idea of knowledge and how it evolves I shared my idea of how we are constantly looking to increase our knowledge to also become omniscient. I didn't say it specifically but basically suggested that we are not only aiming to be with God but be like God. I know this was understood as one guy then decided he wanted to be Dzus.

I shared this with a little reluctance, knowing that this is a forgiven concept to most people, or so they think.

I'm pretty sure that the idea that if we live our live so perfectly we can become a form of super power is not exclusive to our faith. For example, look at the Catholic faith. They elevate some of their leaders and make them saints. In Buddhism, are we not reincarnated until we live a good enough life to be accepted into some form of heaven?

I don't expect anyone to chance as a result of what I share, and my colleagues know that I'm not trying to convert them, I'm just sharing what I believe. But you never know. As stated earlier, these conversations have clearly made each of us ponder a bit more where we stand and maybe someone will move closer to the God camp and further away from the nothing camp.

Religion at work

Last night was one of those rare moments when I was involved in a religious discussion at work.

At 1st I was avoiding the discussion because those that instigated it were being very critical of the bible and there didn't seem to be much point entering at that point. The discussion progressed and moved away from the bible and a dominant negative attitude and moved towards some basics, such as heaven & hell and the very existence of God. It was at this point I decided to become an active participant in the conversation.

I know the chaps know I'm religious and they confirmed that they were waiting for me to join in and were obviously interested in what I had to say.

I did suggest that everything is here for no reason whatsoever and that there is no god. And I suggested that alternatively all of this is here for a reason and that there is something else going on. Both ideas are equally as ridiculous and hard to comprehend as the other. Both schools of thought have many unanswered questions. Of all the people that ever lived on the earth, and do live on the earth, a significant portion of them believe in something, and that can not be ignored. I pointed out that I think every person should dedicate some time to considering what it is they believe.

I was asked the common question regarding infant deaths and why God allows such things to happen, which I tried to answer in two parts. The 1st being that you cannot be held responsible for your grown children's auctions. This lead to further discussion about responsibility and unfortunately I didn't get to my second part of the answer which hopefully would have offered some kind of peace, which is that you can't be repentant or be condemned until you are old enought to comprehend the decisions you are making. Thus young children are innocent and automatically go to heaven.

The conversation then went quite deep with one guy reverting back to science a lot which I struggled to follow.

As per usual though. It wasn't until after the conversation as I pondered the points I heard that I came up with my best responses to his questions. This was good for me as they reaffirmed my own testimony. It's just a shame I couldn't share these better responses with my work colleagues.

Having considered these issues though and formulated answers, I know I will be slightly better prepared for the next conversation.

One idea that I pondered was the idea of knowledge and opinion of God. One guy had a hard time with the bible because he perceived the God of the bible to be a harsh God. For example why would he insist Abraham sacrifice his son? Basically he had a hard time understanding God.

The same chap, however, was willing to accept that there is a lot we don't know about life and the universe. What we know is nothing compared to what we know we don't know. And I suspect he subscribes to the idea that what we know we don't know is nothing compared to what we don't know we don't know.

So I find it odd to hear him say he struggles to comprehend an omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) God when he himself admits that he knows relatively nothing.

To illustrate my point I might ask him to recall a time when his wife has asked him to do something that he does not understalnd, maybe something relating to raising the children. To him what his wife is asking him to do seems crazy, but he trusts her and so he does what she says. Sure enough, she was right. Or another example would be to ask him to recall the thrill of one of his expeditions, hiking though the countryside. I have very fond memories of training with my wife for our 100km challenge. When we tell people about it, we are regularly told we are crazy. But we loved it. And when he tells people about his experiences some people would also tell him he is crazy, they would much rather just stay at home.

Is this not similar to his idea about God and what he asks us to do sometimes. How on earth can we think we know better than him. How can we think that he is barbaric when he asks us to do something when at the same time we know that what we know by comparison to him is absolutely nothing.

I wish I had thought of this point during the conversation. Unfortunately I didn't. But I was given the opportunity to come to this conclusion myself and as a result, my resolve to believe in God was strengthened.

Another conclusion I come to it that it is interesting that we all have the same evidence before us. We all have the world and this life to study and make our decision. Yet, despite the same evidence before us, we come to varying conclusions.