Religion and violence

[chris_brown207]

The United States is nation with a Christian majority, with about 78% claiming some form of Christianity as of 2009. We are one of the most religious nations by far of all of the westernized, modern nations of the world.

Yet, as yesterdays tragedy shows, we are also one of the most violent nations in the world. 2012 has been a historic year for gun violence, with both the frequency and the level of devastation.

Questions for debate - what is the root cause? If religion brings peace, then why are we one of the most violent of the free and democratic nations in the world? What can we do to fix this?

[chris_brown207]

The Left-Wing Liberal Bias.

There ain't no such as a type of assault weapon. All weapons are assault weapons. Ater all when anything is used to "attack" peoples then that is assault. Its a lil phrase conjured up ta scare the low information or heavily biased anti-gun crowd.

I've seen the same kinda tactic used against people with a different skin color or them that pray to a different god then the next guy.

Its a language game.

So that us "Left Wing Liberals" get the terminology correct, perhaps you can suggest another word that we should be using to differentiate weapons that have a 15+ capacity magazine, are semi-automatic, and one of the rifle calibers?

[Angel]

I agree with Otseng's statement except for the point about banning assault rifles. I am not for banning assault rifles because there may be scenarios where you may have to kill a mass number of people, like gangs, violent riots/mobs, etc. Yes, this scenario will hopefully be rare in the US, but that does not take away from my point of there being instances where assault rifles (or any 13+ round clips as high as 30) are useful.

There are a lot of what-if scenarios that an assault rifle would be handy in (maybe those N. Koreans really will invade us like the movie suggested). However, we have multiple examples of actual mass killings taking place within a single year using high capacity assault rifles - no what-ifs necessary.

I don't believe you've said anything to invalidate my point because you have not shown that there is no need for assault rifles. I don't see why my what-if scenarios are invalid because the point of having the weapon is to be prepared if the threat does arrive, it's not to say that you have to have 100% certainty that it will occur in order to have a gun, otherwise we may as well ask some cops to give up their guns if we can predict that they won't ever need it.

[chris_brown207]

Statistic have been shown on this forum that religious countries have more crime. Can it be stated as the same, that religous contries have more gun crime? If so, is it the religious committing the crimes or is it the non-religious?

I can show the stats on religious countries being higher in crime if anyone wants, but I assume most of us here have seen those stats. If you want them, just ask, or google.

This is an interesting question to me. There are after all some commonalities between the gun industry and religions. In both of these industries, much of their marketing seems to revolve around one commonality - fear. In the gun industry, it is the fear of not being able to defend oneself. In religion, it is the fear of death. Are like people drawn to each because they are more apt to respond to that type of advertising?

[chris_brown207]

I don't believe you've said anything to invalidate my point because you have not shown that there is no need for assault rifles. I don't see why my what-if scenarios are invalid because the point of having the weapon is to be prepared if the threat does arrive, it's not to say that you have to have 100% certainty that it will occur otherwise we may as well ask some cops to give up their guns if we can predict that they won't ever need it.

I am not trying trying to invalidate your opinion, you have a good point. I was merely trying to present the possibility that the vaccine could be worse then the disease., or deadly side effects more common then the deadly illness.

[Angel]

I am not for banning assault rifles because there may be scenarios where you may have to kill a mass number of people, like gangs, violent riots/mobs, etc.

Has there been any situation in the past that this scenario has actually happened and required the use of an assault rifle?

Yes, the Los Angeles Riots during the 90s where a lot of Korean businesses were targeted by angry mobs and gangs.

Also, the civil disobedience after Hurrican Katrina in New Orleans. Thugs were loose on the street stealing out of stores, trying to break into police stations, some police even abandoned their post, etc.

[otseng]

Yes, the Los Angeles Riots during the 90s where a lot of Korean businesses were targeted by angry mobs and gangs.

Also, the civil disobedience after Hurrican Katrina in New Orleans. Thugs were loose on the street stealing out of stores, trying to break into police stations, some police even abandoned their post, etc.

I think a shotgun (or even a handgun) is sufficient to deter situations like this. One doesn't necessarily need a AK-47 to keep away looters.

My argument is that there is much more legal usage of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles than illegal uses. But in the case of assault rifles, the ratio of legal use to illegal use would be significantly less. Who uses assault rifles for hunting? Or for competition shooting? Or even for target shooting? For mass murder, what would be the ideal weapon of choice? Banning assault weapons would minimize impacting legal use of guns and maximize reducing illegal uses.

[Angel]

Yes, the Los Angeles Riots during the 90s where a lot of Korean businesses were targeted by angry mobs and gangs.

Also, the civil disobedience after Hurrican Katrina in New Orleans. Thugs were loose on the street stealing out of stores, trying to break into police stations, some police even abandoned their post, etc.

I think a shotgun (or even a handgun) is sufficient to deter situations like this. One doesn't necessarily need a AK-47 to keep away looters.

It depends on how many perpetrators there are. A regular handgun/shotgun usually holds, 8 to 14 rounds. A violent mob, who may have weapons themselves, can consist of more than 14 people. In that scenario, it would be best to have a weapon where you not only have to reload as much but also a gun where you can take out mass numbers of people. By your own admission, an assault rifle is for mass killings so logically it would do be the gun for mass killings when a threat involves a massive number of people. If you think about it, a civilian version rifle is just like a handgun, both are semi-automatic, except you can hold more ammo with an assault rifle (30 rounds in a standard clip).

My argument is that there is much more legal usage of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles than illegal uses. But in the case of assault rifles, the ratio of legal use to illegal use would be significantly less. Who uses assault rifles for hunting? Or for competition shooting? Or even for target shooting? For mass murder, what would be the ideal weapon of choice? Banning assault weapons would minimize impacting legal use of guns and maximize reducing illegal uses.

To deal with a threat involving mass numbers, which weapon would be suitable, a hand gun or an assault rifle? Why do even cops have assault rifles?

You claim that there's more illegal use of assault weapons than there is illegal use of hand guns. What did you go by to draw this conclusion? I ask because my sources say otherwise. According to FBI data, there are more murders with handguns than there are with rifles. Look at the following source, FBI data on murders with weapons, and compare each state's murder and also compare the type of weapon used between the hand gun and rifle. In each of the comparisons I went through, with the exception of Hawaii, I found that there were many more hand gun murders than murders involving assault rifles.

I believe the mainstream media's focus on mass shootings make the use of rifles stand out more. If you think beyond inductive fallacies and selective reporting on gun murders, then you'll notice that hand gun murders are worse.

[otseng]

It depends on how many perpetrators there are. A regular handgun/shotgun usually holds, 8 to 14 rounds. A violent mob, who may have weapons themselves, can consist of more than 14 people.

A mob is not going to be like a zombie attack. If one person in the mob gets shot down, it's not like the rest will continue to rush on. They will more than likely reconsider going after that particular store and go to another store that is unarmed.

In that scenario, it would be best to have a weapon where you not only have to reload as much but also a gun where you can take out mass numbers of people.

This scenario is so remote that most people will never encounter this situation.

By your own admission, an assault rifle is for mass killings so logically it would do be the gun for mass killings when a threat involves a massive number of people.

It would be more likely to involve a mass murder than a justified self defense.

To deal with a threat involving mass numbers, which weapon would be suitable, a hand gun or an assault rifle? Why do even cops have assault rifles?

The general public rarely will ever get into this situation. Police certainly might, but not your average Joe.

You claim that there's more illegal use of assault weapons than there is illegal use of hand guns.

No, I didn't say that. I said the ratio of legal to illegal use.

According to FBI data, there are more murders with handguns than there are with rifles.

Sure, don't disagree. But there are a lot of handguns being used legally, so the ratio would be low.

Also, I'm not classifying all rifles together. I make a distinction between hunting rifles and assault rifles. There are a lot of hunting rifles used legally. But since most people do not hunt with assault rifles, they would not be used as much legally.

[chris_brown207]

Yes, the Los Angeles Riots during the 90s where a lot of Korean businesses were targeted by angry mobs and gangs.

Also, the civil disobedience after Hurrican Katrina in New Orleans. Thugs were loose on the street stealing out of stores, trying to break into police stations, some police even abandoned their post, etc.

Forgive me for intruding again. I wanted to make 2 points. One: the two examples you yourself have provided over a decade apart. While these mass shootings have happened every year.

To deal with a threat involving mass numbers, which weapon would be suitable, a hand gun or an assault rifle? Why do even cops have assault rifles?

Two: Of course Assault Weapons would be more useful against numbers of people. This is why they are favored by police, military.... and mass shooters. The problem is that by making them so available to the public, we have also made them available to people who are teetering on the edge, or have crossed over the likelihood of committing an act like this. The devastation that can be caused in such a short time by these weapons has been proven 3 times in the past 6 months...

[Angel]

It depends on how many perpetrators there are. A regular handgun/shotgun usually holds, 8 to 14 rounds. A violent mob, who may have weapons themselves, can consist of more than 14 people.

A mob is not going to be like a zombie attack. If one person in the mob gets shot down, it's not like the rest will continue to rush on. They will more than likely reconsider going after that particular store and go to another store that is unarmed.

THis point of yours does not invalidate my point regarding assault rifles being useful for protection against threats involving mass numbers of people. You mention all that would be needed is one gunshot but this would depend on the motivation of the mob, like if you have something they really wanted and if they themselves had weapons. Now I'm not saying that a shotgun would be completely uneffective, but when you have to stop and reload after 12 shots, and you have more than 12 violent rioters who may have their own weapons, then you may be as good as dead. Either way, my intentions was not to show that assault rifles were the only way to handle numerous threats at one time, but rather that it's simply one way and perhaps the best way which makes it useful. You're making it sound as if there's no reasonable use for it at all, as if, all it can be used for is for shooting a deer or two and that's not the case.

In that scenario, it would be best to have a weapon where you not only have to reload as much but also a gun where you can take out mass numbers of people.

This scenario is so remote that most people will never encounter this situation.

This is your speculation. You can't guarantee to anyone that there will never again be civil unrest and riots in this country.

By your own admission, an assault rifle is for mass killings so logically it would do be the gun for mass killings when a threat involves a massive number of people.

It would be more likely to involve a mass murder than a justified self defense.

This is an inductive fallacy unless you have evidence that compares the legal self-defense use of assualt rifles compared to its use for mass murdering. Do you have actual data to support your claim here or are you simply riding the tide of the mainstream media and their emphasis on mass shootings compared to other types of shootings? Also, keep in mind that assault rifles can be used to protect yourself from just one threat instead of just massive threats.

I also question what banning assault rifles will do when people can also commit mass murder with other weapons. Take for example, Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, was able to kill 32 people and injure over 20 others using handguns (source: cbs). Is the real problem the assault rifles or is it with the LACK of background checks and periodic mental evavluations? Imagine, if these conditions were put in place then you would likely not see mass shootings using any gun.

To deal with a threat involving mass numbers, which weapon would be suitable, a hand gun or an assault rifle? Why do even cops have assault rifles?

The general public rarely will ever get into this situation. Police certainly might, but not your average Joe.

Your statement only translates into assault rifles being rarely needed for self-defense against numerous threats.

You claim that there's more illegal use of assault weapons than there is illegal use of hand guns.

No, I didn't say that. I said the ratio of legal to illegal use.

This was your conclusion in post #96 - Otseng said,
"Banning assault weapons would minimize impacting legal use of guns and maximize reducing illegal uses."

That's basically implying that assault rifles contribute to gun crime more than hand guns. As I've shown using FBI data, your claim is wrong and likely influenced by the recent elementary school shooting. I'd want to see data regarding how many times hand guns have been used for self-protection because the number of times used for crime may be much more than the legal use.

According to FBI data, there are more murders with handguns than there are with rifles.

Sure, don't disagree. But there are a lot of handguns being used legally, so the ratio would be low.

Also, I'm not classifying all rifles together. I make a distinction between hunting rifles and assault rifles. There are a lot of hunting rifles used legally. But since most people do not hunt with assault rifles, they would not be used as much legally.

They would not be used as much "legally" or would they not use it at all? When you don't include that latter alternative you're committing engaging in a false dilemma fallacy.