Search results

:applause:

As it is true that I am a lawyer, there is nothing in there to retract. How about you?

Do you acknowledge I'm a lawyer or not? Do you retract the insult of accusing me of lying or not (to try to wriggle out of that being a personal insult is very poor show on your part)?

And yet neither I nor indeed anyone I know has felt the slightest desire (not in my case since I was about 10 years old) to possess a gun, yet we do not feel unsafe. Explain that!

I have answered your question. Now kindly answer mine. I note you have called me a liar and, like Rev Mitchell, are now reduced to personal insults which do neither of you any credit whatsoever as men, still less as Christians. I have therefore taken note of both of you. As you have impugned...

1. I've given you the defence now. You still haven't answered by question. 2. Do you believe I'm a lawyer or a liar? Enquiring minds wish to know...

Explain how this relates specifically to guns

They did. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... You called me 'ignorant'. I felt obliged to disabuse you of your misguided assumption. You're welcome;)

There's grocery stores, you know.

Thank you. I have a degree in law plus post-grad qualifications, so I am well aware that when protagonists resort to personal insults, they demonstrate that they know they are losing the argument.

Both of those are fine. Not sure why you would need to do either outside a rural environment though.

OK, apart from target shooting, all of your list involve inflicting death or injury as the purpose. I rest my case. [cp with John Deere Fan, to whom: Jesus made it clear to the disciples that He was talking metaphorically when He rebuked them immediately afterwards for showing Him their...

In what way isn't it? Please elaborate on the other uses, then. I have no objection to the 'authorities' defending the innocent, if that's what you're alluding to. The military can and of course should be armed. I do however vehemently object to my neighbour being armed.

Then kindly explain the "101 Uses of a Gun" for us 'sophomores'.

And you base this unfounded assumption on what, exactly?

:thumbsup: You said it much better than I could!

You understand metaphor, don't you? And your post utterly misses the point about the sole purpose of the gun being to kill, maim or injure. I can't see that as being Gospel values, can you?

This for me highlights a massive Pond cultural difference: you feel secure knowing you and your neighbours own a gun; I feel secure that neither I or any of my neighbours own a gun which they could use to go on a shooting spree if they feel life is treating them a tad unfairly like Master Rodgers.

I think that the main point of difference re guns is that they are 'tools' whose sole use (outside of the sporting arena) is to inflict injury and death. That is in contrast to all the other things listed by people: cars, alcohol, knives, etc, which don't have death and injury as their reason...

Yep. I'm well aware of that - and I really struggle to understand it. I particularly struggle when it is Christians who are endorsing the possession of instruments of death - it runs totally counter-cultural to Gospel values IMO. [But, then, we have our own pro-death culture here too: abortion...