Graphic Video: The Only Proof You Need That Guns Save Lives: “I Did The Right Thing”

[outerheaven]

Not a Christian, but I like what Jesus had to say, Matthew 5:

Ye have heard that it hath been said,
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and
take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

Aw, why couldn't he have recommend we all get guns to mow down the troubled, machete-wielding neighbor?

Carmody is making excellent points here, people, don't overlook it or think it too "impractical" for "the real world." The real world is quite obviously flawed, and if you intend on living in accordance with real world logic and morality, you just might miss the mark.

This isn't to say that innocent lives wouldn't be lost; but neither is that to say that they aren't currently being lost, or haven't been lost for thousands of years as we continue to grind through this cycle.

It does indeed start with us, every single base action and thought.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
I have some "preparations" ... seems logical, but the deep root is fear of lack. When you look at everything a human does -- every decision he makes -- he is reacting in fear 99.99 percent of the time.

That's a bit of an over-generalization IMO. I have food because I recognize the inherent possibility that I will need to eat. I have clothes because I recognize - especially in the Pacific NW - that it is very easy and unhealthy for one to get too cold. I have weapons because I live in an environment with more than its share of methamphetamine addicts who might one day assault my persons (me and my sworn) or property; admittedly, I would be at a disadvantage if they brought a gun, but I practice with my weapons (as a form of physical, mental and spiritual training) and unless its a full-blown firing squad, I like my odds. That's not fear, that's risk assessment.

Only one's perspective can dismiss practicality and logic as fear; I do not contest that there are cases where fear is disguised as such, but your '99.99%' is simply unsupportable.

Personally, I don't believe in fear; I recognize the feeling of apprehension, or the sensation of an unresolved conflict, issue, obstacle, etc. but IMO 'fear' is as much a blanket rationalization as the word 'evil' (also 'good', and 'love' for that matter but that's a whole different can of worms that is probably better suited for another discussion).

You have much to learn about fear methinks. There are only two driving motivation forces from which all other step down or even illusory "emotions" and "feelings" spawn from. Either Love or Fear. Do I have "preparation" out of my love that I can do it, or out of fear something might go wrong if I don't? It's clearly not the former. Thus is it is the latter.

Proper fear exists in your body and not in your mind, if you have eradicated fear from your conscious and subconscious fully, than congratulations; but while you may be a "Ninja" I doubt you have succeeded at this fully, but who knows. When fear is in your body as it is intended it does not ever arise on a thought or a memory, and it no longer drives inner dialogue about planning for the future, and it no longer toys with your emotions. Your relationship with what we call "emotions" completely changes -- completely. They no longer even fit the same definition or word.

One who has fear within their conscious and subconscious has an incessant inner dialogue that is always repeating the past (usually the perceived mistakes of the past by self or others) and it always thinks ahead of you for planning the future. It replaces natural human instinct with crude rational thought. It takes control of your emotional reactions where one thinks it is normal for it to exist, but it is not, this is not natural, this is a side effect.

Perhaps you see "fear" as a generalization like "evil" because you haven't bothered to look within it for the distinctions that exist there?

[Anchor]

Thankyou Carmody and DeDukshyn - you have done really well trying to explain something so hard to explain.

What came to mind as I read this thread - and since no-one else has trotted it out yet, I will:

Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)

I don't judge nor really have an opinion on what either of those men did - and we likely don't know everything about that situation.

As onlookers now on this, I feel we should look at the bigger picture and our selves and at what it is that permits such causes and effects in our world.

[M0JFK]

I don't even know why the guy was making his apologies for shooting him. If it was me I would of been poking a stick into his bullet holes/wounds or standing on them and twisting my foot just like Dirty Harry did in the movie to the sadistic child killer he shot. I wouldn't say sorry...in fact I would of finished him off with one to the back of the head.

Then again this resident could of had the Police coming through his door and shooting him first. That appears to be happening quite a lot now in the states...your in more threat from the police than you are the crooks these days especially if you happen to be of the canine genre, homeless person or just black. Hell one cop even got his buddy to hold a dog down why he slashed its throat and bled it to death just recently.

By the way the bit with the stick with the intruder is a joke folks. I would of just sat him down tied to a chair and force him to watch the re-runs of all the Cecil B Demille movies.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Anchor (here)
...

Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)

...

Hey, it sounds like you are taking a shot at Shezbeth with that "sword" analogy. lol <--- all meant in jest of course!

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by M0JFK (here)
I don't even know why the guy was making his apologies for shooting him.

They were acquaintances, the shooter was calling him by his fist name only the whole time. They were neighbours -- it likely seemed appropriate to do so at the time.

[dianna]

Me too brother …

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU

[Shezbeth]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Anchor (here)
...

Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)

...

Hey, it sounds like you are taking a shot at Shezbeth with that "sword" analogy. lol <--- all meant in jest of course!

Just one problem with that,... the phrase (which to my comprehension and translation is "die by the sword") refers to a metaphysical truth where the sword is comparable and translatable to the reason, and that one who grasps the reason must apply the reason to themselves equally to the world. Hence, the 'death by the sword' is not a literal death, but the termination of unsound ideas, practices, etc. As with most spiritual texts, it loses all flavor and connotation if taken at face value.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Anchor (here)
...

Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)

...

Hey, it sounds like you are taking a shot at Shezbeth with that "sword" analogy. lol <--- all meant in jest of course!

Just one problem with that,... the phrase (which to my comprehension and translation is "die by the sword") refers to a metaphysical truth where the sword is comparable and translatable to the reason, and that one who grasps the reason must apply the reason to themselves equally to the world. Hence, the 'death by the sword' is not a literal death, but the termination of unsound ideas, practices, etc. As with most spiritual texts, it loses all flavor and connotation if taken at face value.

What we call "reasons" spring almost entirely from Fear ... this is how it is disguised as "practicality".

"Choice" springs from Love. Instinct also springs from love, but it can invoke physical fear when required to keep the body safe. Very subtle differences, in most cases, just motivation (one case fear is evoked in the mind and the other it is evoked in the body), but it makes all the difference in the world. So I agree that the script isn't literal (of course), but I do beg to differ that it still does apply, perhaps just on a different level.

[M0JFK]

I bet Alex Jones is just over the moon with this one...lol Have you seen AJ's skit on the I am Bill Hicks???...lol nice to see Alex using humour for a change.

[Shezbeth]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
What we call "reasons" spring almost entirely from Fear ... this is how it is disguised as "practicality".

"Choice" springs from Love. Instinct also springs from love, but it can invoke physical fear when required to keep the body safe. Very subtle differences, in most cases, just motivation, but it makes all the difference in the world. So I agree that the script isn't literal, but I do beg to differ that it still does apply.

You are wholly entitled to your opinion and perspective. May it be that such perspective offers increasing benefit, growth, and development.



Begging to likewise differ, that is among the most asinine statements I have ever read. Again, I am not contesting the validity of it in your perspective, but IMO it is spurious and damaging to a healthy and strategic disposition. I find your assertions regarding choice springing from love (OR fear for that matter) to be abjectly unsupportable. That 'choice' is entirely derived from reason is so basic and axiomatic that I am not sure there is any purpose in continuing to press this matter.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
What we call "reasons" spring almost entirely from Fear ... this is how it is disguised as "practicality".

"Choice" springs from Love. Instinct also springs from love, but it can invoke physical fear when required to keep the body safe. Very subtle differences, in most cases, just motivation, but it makes all the difference in the world. So I agree that the script isn't literal, but I do beg to differ that it still does apply.

You are wholly entitled to your opinion and perspective. May it be that such perspective offers increasing benefit, growth, and development.



Begging to likewise differ, that is among the most asinine statements I have ever read. Again, I am not contesting the validity of it in your perspective, but IMO it is spurious and damaging to a healthy and strategic disposition. I find your assertions regarding choice springing from love (OR fear for that matter) to be abjectly unsupportable. That 'choice' is entirely derived from reason is so basic and axiomatic that I am not sure there is any purpose in continuing to press this matter.

Let me explain the difference between "choice" and "decision", for it appears to me this lack of distinction has driven your position.

Consider these definitions:
Decision = making a selection based on a consideration
Choice = making a selection after a consideration

Subtle I know, but hold that distinction for a moment and bear with me.

Let us ask, "Ford Mustang or Chevy Camaro?" choose one. Why did you choose it? The response might be "I like Chevy better", or "The Mustang is faster", or "I always wanted a Mustang!", or "Camaros look better" or, "The live axle in the mustang sucks", or, or, or , or ,or ... everyone will have a reason for their choice, and not all choices will be the same. So if we look at the definitions I asked to consider, all these are selections based on a consideration - we know it was based on a consideration because every person will respond with what that consideration was. This is a decision. Decisions are based on "reasons"

Now a choice is something that is free. It has no bounding rules, does it? To have a choice means you are unbound by considerations if you so wish. In order for choice to be truly free, it must be chosen outside the boundaries of consideration, although a choice may be made after a consideration. Who gives a ****? right? In one mentality governing choice, you are always going to decide for a reason, without the consideration for nor having a consideration, therefore your selection will always be bound by those "reasons" -- they may have come from past experiences, what other people have said, teachings, what our culture expects, what church said, what school said, etc. Basically any influence you have accepted that is not yours. Who's in control? Just because you might be in control of what pre-rendered "reasoning" is available, doesn't give you true freedom. This is how humanity is enslaved.

When one has a mindset to truly "choose" (and in my findings they don't often work concurrently) the expression used to override the pre made "reasons" have to be either instinct or love.

Most often the selections are the same from either mindset, only one allows a far greater freedom, and allows more readily the use of instinct, in which humanity is greatly deficient in.

My thoughts, you don't have to agree.

[Shezbeth]

I can see that you are drawing distinction between 'reason' (the concept surrounding the acute application of mental processes) and 'reasons' (validations or justifications for choice).

Still, your perspective appears to operate from a diverse (and IMO flawed) perspective that does not allow for the free-flowing expression of reason (the conceptual) by equating it with fear. If reason is stunted, it cannot be merged with will, and emergence cannot thus be realized.

Thank you for taking the effort to illustrate your perception, I hope you will not be offended when I disregard it.

[3(C)+me]

Yes, we should ban guns in a perfect society but the only I would feel comfortable with that if the Government, police, CIA, secret black government with all it's electronic mind control, black magic grids, etc gives it up first. I support the constitution.
But if you have a gun for all those crazy people out there coupled with a good dose of paranoia then I think you may invite some type of conflict, just by your mindset forget about 'those people out there or the cabal" you can invite this stuff to your very door.
All this is fear based and yes, we have been trained very well to be afraid and act from fear but the only way we are going to really deal with this is to deal with our own fear (and our tolerance for violence) so having a gun makes no sense to me, because tells me I am in fear. I don't want to be a person who lives with a gun that is locked and loaded by the door ( there are exceptions living in the outback Alaska would be one, maybe a crazy neighbor who has a machete would be another). This is not a black or white, good or bad kind of thing but there are shades of gray.
Here's another side of the story
A two-year-old boy in a shopping trolley at a Walmart store accidentally shot dead his mother with a gun he found in her handbag.
http://news.sky.com/story/1399907/tw...ead-at-walmart

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
I can see that you are drawing distinction between 'reason' (the concept surrounding the acute application of mental processes) and 'reasons' (validations or justifications for choice).

Still, your perspective appears to operate from a diverse (and IMO flawed) perspective that does not allow for the free-flowing expression of reason (the conceptual) by equating it with fear. If reason is stunted, it cannot be merged with will, and emergence cannot thus be realized.

Thank you for taking the effort to illustrate your perception, I hope you will not be offended when I disregard it.

If fear is in the body, it has ability for its expression whenever warranted. When it is in the mind it is out of its place to be calling the orders. Therefore freedom of expression is only truly free when fear is not within the mind.

You can disregard whatever you want without offending me ... Yet if you continue to consider everything, and I really mean consider it, within all perspectives, then I invite you to believe nothing, including anything I write.

You may want to read what I previously posted in light of what I latter posted -- it may make more sense.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
I can see that you are drawing distinction between 'reason' (the concept surrounding the acute application of mental processes) and 'reasons' (validations or justifications for choice).

Still, your perspective appears to operate from a diverse (and IMO flawed) perspective that does not allow for the free-flowing expression of reason (the conceptual) by equating it with fear. If reason is stunted, it cannot be merged with will, and emergence cannot thus be realized.

Thank you for taking the effort to illustrate your perception, I hope you will not be offended when I disregard it.

"reason" is the catalyst for "reasons" -- they are closely related. Thus not much distinction was drawn.

[Shezbeth]

Posted by cccme (here)
A two-year-old boy in a shopping trolley at a Walmart store accidentally shot dead his mother with a gun he found in her handbag.
http://news.sky.com/story/1399907/tw...ead-at-walmart

I would not consider this a side story at all, this seems to more readily address the overall theme of the thread.

In reading the article, this is (IMO) a clear example of irresponsible concealed-carry. Why do I state it as irresponsible? Because in responsible concealed carry one is never to be out of control of the weapon. Leaving it in one's purse may seem like "I always have control" or "... have it with me", but clearly this was not the case. Legal statutes allow concealed carry to include one's handbag, but handbags can obviously be put down or within easy access of others aside from the intended owner/user. A shoulder, belt, ankle, etc. harness cannot be put down unless deliberately removed, and one does not carry their money, checkbook, cellphone, etc. in their shoulder-harness.

Simply, while the first article states (correctly IMO) that "I did the right thing", the tagline for the second would clearly (again IMO) be "She did the wrong thing".

People DO make bad decisions with firearms, of that I have no contest, however banning and/or eliminating firearms to prevent improper usage is putting the cart before the horse. I agree that addressing the societal aberration from which firearms are necessary is a good strategy and start, but even if society becomes entirely peaceful there are still situations (rural areas especially) where firearms are entirely useful and adequate tools.

[DNA]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
I can see that you are drawing distinction between 'reason' (the concept surrounding the acute application of mental processes) and 'reasons' (validations or justifications for choice).

Still, your perspective appears to operate from a diverse (and IMO flawed) perspective that does not allow for the free-flowing expression of reason (the conceptual) by equating it with fear. If reason is stunted, it cannot be merged with will, and emergence cannot thus be realized.

Thank you for taking the effort to illustrate your perception, I hope you will not be offended when I disregard it.

Dude you are straight up poetic at times. You use the same concepts with economy in word choice for writing that Bruce Lee used in the idea of no wasted movements in order to punch somebody in the face. Economy of motion, no wasted movements or in your case presenting a complex communication in as few words as possible and somehow not sacrificing the message.

It's a beautiful thing. I don't always agree with you but i never cease to be amazed how well you communicate your thoughts.

[DarMar]

Wtf...

he had to clean that gun often util he used it... he had to bear some thought while doing that... HE DID!! he manifested this!
he cannot manifest this by cleaning his flower pot!
it is just he is not aware of that?!?
conscious=gone

what are chances that guy with machete walks home, sees through window that his neighbour have gun, get nerved and do this stupid action? What are the chances this **** happened because they HAD WEAPONS IN FIRST PLACE... well a BIG one.
What are the chances that they were known to each other and, machete guy didn't thought will get shot by breaking cardboard piece on door.. and went through even he heard couple of times that host has a gun .. oh yes i remember now.. i gotta read what writes there below picture.. to know...

yes i do know and see more and more that humans do not need to be influenced at all to do retarded actions which marks them for life and beyond.
Love guns really??
LOVE-GUNS

Well i gotta news for ya.. you live EXACTLY in place to love guns.. wow.. who would tell? you have all that you need, situations, scenes, all friggin theatre is there, created by you and you-s.. YOU LIVE IN WHAT YOU CREATE.
Here was war n stuff yet... people mostly threw their guns.. yeas there are dumbos here also, but interesting thing is they deal with themselves internally... who would tell again, right?

It is all hyped arround guns, freedoms, killings..BECAUSE... BECAUSE
GUN won't make you free, it will help your manipulated head to kill your manipulated brother head so prison holders don't need to get blood on hands.

ohh it is about saving self?!?

well if you see only way for you to survive is TO KILL ANOTHER ONE..

DO YOU REALLY NEED TO SURVIVE?

do not even to try to tell me how killing is only option... and if you do, try feel heart while writing, put away thinking...

he could put all kind of furniture on door, which machete could not brake...but that's not why he bought gun!

doh...

[Carmody]

Why it's not about the guns, why to never limit the focus on the guns and the smaller life, the smallest circle of logic of all. Liking guns as they keep you safe, as a final point and limit in thinking, is like being in a cave and looking for the next meal. Total neanderthal animal minded.

Driven to having that mindset dominate the thought process, as a filter and forced thinking pattern. Where constant stress and constant bombardment disallows people to think clear and more elevated thoughts, as the stress triggers their body to have 'fight or flight' thoughts dominate the thinking process. Stressing that is constant, to dumb the population down into animal dominated thinking patterns.

How did we get to a damaged PTSD brain and mind, coming out from a war machine, using a machete...and then a man protecting his family by shooting him with a handgun, a handgun he feels he requires, in order to protect himself and his family?

How did it come to this?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is one of the great 'tracks' or 'trails of evidence' of how you got in this insane mess, read my post and then go back to the top and read the thread:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post926841

A key line, that pertains to the need to be 'looking around in bigger circles of logic':

Done to you...not because you want to be those things, but because they made you that way, all outside of your knowing and outside of your agreement.

If a person can't read that, then they are already dead and they've already killed their children and are involved in killing their neighbor's children. Like George Orwell said, 'the future, is a boot stomping on a human face...forever'.

Until you snap out if it, that's all you'll ever have.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Carmody (here)
Driven to having that mindset dominate the thought process, as a filter and forced thinking pattern. Where constant stress and constant bombardment disallows people to think clear and more elevated thoughts, as the stress triggers their body to have 'fight or flight' thoughts dominate the thinking process. Stressing that is constant, to dumb the population down into animal dominated thinking patterns.

Yes, this is exactly what MSM and other social and cultural institutions often do. Always creating situations to make people stressed and fearful.

And those same people and institutions are the ones that want to take guns away from civilians.