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?

[Armed Citizen]

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...

Cann I be gettin' citation of this here asertion please? Specifically that there bold part I highlighted. I sure would be appreciatin it.

Thanks




:2gun:

No problem.

Assault Weapons preferred by military: I am a former member of Naval Special Operations. The standard weapon of issue for ground troops is the M-4, a semi-auto and automatic weapon of the rifle caliber 5.56mm. Some other weapons commonly carried by ground troops are the SAW - 5.56mm belt fed machine gun, the M240 - a 7.62mm belt fed machine gun, the Mk42 - a shortened and lightened version of the M-60 machine gun. The only field component not armed with semi-auto at the least weapons are snipers - and many of them are switching over to semi-auto sniper rifles. Weapons prefferred by the military are mostly automatic and semi-auto with high magazine capacities because of their ability to sustain a high rate of fire on target with minimal breaks in between.

Assault Weapons favored by police: While there is no national standard for police, many of the officers that I have worked with had an M-4 in their police vehicles. Here is a list of weapons used by some SWAT operators.

Assault Weapons favored by Mass Shooters just within the last six months:
- Aurora Theater - used an AR-15 (very similar to an M-4) style rifle as his primary weapon
- The Oregon Mall Shooter - He used same type of rifle. The only reason he didn't have a higher body count was his rifle jammed (this was a stolen rifle, and the only of the recent mass shooters who used an illegally owned rifle).
- Sandy Hook Shooter - used the exact same style rifle as the previous two.

While I am not for a ban of weapons, I do think there is something to be said for the fact that none of these shooters used "black market" machine guns, or any other type of NFA weapon. Matter of fact, I couldn't find a recent attack in which an NFA weapon was used. All the weapons used were commong "Over The Counter" type weapons. This would seem to indicate that an effective measure for public safety would be to include certain "assault rifles" in the NFA category, and reserve them for only serious citizens willing to go through the process of attaining an FFL, and a Class 3 SOT.

Sorry bout that Chris, I sorta went and forgot about this.
So, I kinda knew all the details ya listed above about the military and police so I didnt highlight it on pourpose. I was more interested in that there part about bein preferred by mass murders. Three occurences out of how many, this here year alone?
How many shootins we had over the years and how many have involved assault rifles?
Thats what I am getting at.


:2gun:

[chris_brown207]

Sorry bout that Chris, I sorta went and forgot about this.
So, I kinda knew all the details ya listed above about the military and police so I didnt highlight it on pourpose. I was more interested in that there part about bein preferred by mass murders. Three occurences out of how many, this here year alone?
How many shootins we had over the years and how many have involved assault rifles?
Thats what I am getting at.


:2gun:

That is a very good question, and I sure didn't know the answer to it - so I had to do some research. Thank you for posing it, as I learned something new too.

One website did a pretty good job of looking at the mass killings that have occurred since 1982. They counted 62 mass killings, easily more than 1 per year. Of those mass killings 3/4th of them were carried out with legally owned guns. Of the 142 guns that were owned, or were in the possession of the shooters at the time of the shootings, a total of 35 of those were assault weapons. The majority used semi-auto pistols (68). Then at the bottom of the list were revolvers (20), and shotguns (19).

It is fairly easy to see that semi-auto, and high magazine weapons are greatly preferred.

[otseng]

I think I could support having some key members of a school system armed with a CCL weapon. These individuals would need to be very familiar and train regularly with local responders to ensure no Blue on Blue accidents takes place, but yes I think I could support this.

In my opinion such legislation would also need to be bundled with legislation that would place Assault Rifles in an NFA category, and then new legislation to diagnose and treat the mentally unstable as well as regulations for what, how and where weapons will be in places that house these individuals.

What do you all think?

I could probably go with this.

What would qualify as being mentally unstable?

[chris_brown207]

I think I could support having some key members of a school system armed with a CCL weapon. These individuals would need to be very familiar and train regularly with local responders to ensure no Blue on Blue accidents takes place, but yes I think I could support this.

In my opinion such legislation would also need to be bundled with legislation that would place Assault Rifles in an NFA category, and then new legislation to diagnose and treat the mentally unstable as well as regulations for what, how and where weapons will be in places that house these individuals.

What do you all think?

I could probably go with this.

What would qualify as being mentally unstable?

Brother, that is above my paygrade!

I guess a simplistic answer would be anyone so incapacitated that they are on the verge of hurting themselves or others.

What I would rather see is psychologists take a harder look at what allowed people with obvious mental issues to go unchecked and possibly untreated for so long until they carried out such acts.

[otseng]

What would qualify as being mentally unstable?

Brother, that is above my paygrade!

I guess a simplistic answer would be anyone so incapacitated that they are on the verge of hurting themselves or others.

What I would rather see is psychologists take a harder look at what allowed people with obvious mental issues to go unchecked and possibly untreated for so long until they carried out such acts.

I think it's above most of our pay grades!

I think a difficulty is trying to objectively determine the line where someone can or cannot own a gun. And would it have been effective in the case of Adam Lanza?

[Angel]

THis point of yours does not invalidate my point regarding assault rifles being useful for protection against threats involving mass numbers of people.

I'm not stating that it would not be useful for that. I'm saying that having a shotgun or a handgun is also effective, if not more so.

If I was a store owner, I don't think an AK-47 would be as useful as a handgun. If a robber came in and wanted to rob the store, it'd be better to reach for a handgun (either in a holster or in some other convenient location) than for an assault rifle. More than likely it's not going to be at some location that can be readily accessible. And saying "Uh, hold on, let me go to the back room while I get my AK-47." is probably not going to work.

The only time I see an assault rifle that can be remotely used is when the robbers are outside the store and you're standing at the entrance. And that scenario would be quite remote.

Under the scenario you mentioned, I would agree that a shotgun or even a handgun would be sufficient to defend yourself. This doesn't mean that you couldn't also use an assault rifle if it was within your reach and I think we both agree here so far. The scenario that I brought up involved mass numbers of people who's intent is to be violent and do harm.

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.

If there are 12 violent rioters each with a gun, it doesn't matter what you have, you are probably not going to win the gun fight. It's better to just let them take whatever they want.

We can think of a number of different scenarios, but generally, if there's a lot of people coming at you with the intent to do harm, then you're going to need a weapon that can take out a mass number of people. Depending on how far or close you are, the moment you have to reload may be a matter of life and death so it's reasonable to have a gun that can hold lots of ammo. You seem to be at least accepting that rifles can be useful but you still don't like them for some reason. I believe others don't like them for reasons that I believe are irrational. A semi-automatic rifle is like a handgun that can fire 30 bullets, it just has a harder punch to it.

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.

I'm not saying it's not efficient in killing a lot of people quickly. As a matter of fact, I do believe it's efficient in killing a lot of people quickly. But, it's more likely to be used to murder a lot of people quickly rather than to legally defend oneself against an onslought of intruders.

If you asked me five years ago about banning assault weapons, I'd be against it. But, unfortunately, we are seeing mass murder with guns too often now. And, if assault weapons are not controlled more, I am quite certain that we will see its use more in mass killings.

Again, are you assuming, especially in light of the mainstream media extended focus on mass shootings despite shootings happening everyday? Are you not considering that it's possible to use an assault rifle to kill just one single person? I hope you factor in that if the standards for obtaining an assault rifle were stricter, that none of these NUTCASES, just like in the recent shootings that have been getting a lot of media focus, would likely not have taken place.

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.

I'm not too sure about that. I'll await the verdict on the Trayvon Martin case, major natural disasters accompanied with violent looters some of those in Hurricane Katrina, etc. I'm not sure if you're scared to admit the possibility or if you're just being too optimistic or if your judgement is tainted by the overreaction that teh average person usually gets when there's a tragic gun violence. If you take a step back and look at the situation objectively, more people would notice that it does not take banning assault rifles to reduce the likelihood of mass shootings, in fact, getting most law abiding citizens weapons would help make criminals and nutcases think twice. This is precisely why you rarely hear about mass shootings at gun ranges, police stations, and army bases.

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

As I mentioned, it's not absolutely necessary to have an assault weapon during riots. Plus, riots generally do not involve the mob using guns.

Depends on the mob. A mob can be a group of people who are in a gang, as some were during the LA riots. Los Angeles is notorious for gang activity.

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?

I'm not saying that assault rifles cannot be used for self-defense. But, I am saying that assault rifles are generally not used for hunting, competition shooting, and even shooting at the shooting range. Thus, there are far more legal usage of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles than assault rifles.

I have my doubts about your claims but the fact still remains that it is not necessary to ban assault rifles in order to help reduce mass murders. In fact, like I mentioned before, hand guns have also been used in mass shootings and even to commit more crimes compared to assault rifles.

I also question what banning assault rifles will do when people can also commit mass murder with other weapons.

Banning assault weapons is not the golden bullet. It will not completely stop gun violence. It will require a multi-prong approach. But, hopefully it would reduce the number of fatalities.

Fair enough. I tend to side on the people's right to possess whatever guns they want with some "reasonable" restrictions or without UNNecessary restrictions based on speculative reasons and mass knee-jerk fear reaction.

Is the real problem the assault rifles or is it with the LACK of background checks and periodic mental evavluations?

Well, the REAL problem is the sinful nature of man.

I agree 1000%

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

I think an assault rifle is overkill for defense purposes. If you heard an intruder in your home, would you reach first for a M16 or a Glock 17?

Depends on my mood! : )

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.

I've never encountered anyone who hunts with assault rifles. Sure, there could be some people that do, but they would be a small minority.

I'm still left believing that it is unnecessary to ban assault rifles to reduce mass shootings. I will say it would not be harmful to ban them, but I tend to be on the side of whatever allows Americans to possess the most that they can get when it comes to guns.

[Passenger]

I don't agree with some of your reasoning 100% on some of your other points, but I mainly wanted to respond to the part where you talked about teachers having guns. I do believe that teachers who are trained to use firearms should be able to carry it to school just as any security officer on the property would be armed.

You pointed out 2 cases where the mass gunmen wore body armor and carried assault rifles, but that does not mean that every person entering a school with the intent to do harm will wear and carry the same arms. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, who killed 13 people and wonded dozens did not have body armor nor did Seung-Hui Cho, the Virigina Tech shooter. In the latter case, if someone had a gun, that person(s) could've easily taken him out before he would've been able to murder 32 and injure dozens of DEFENSELESS people.

I think I could support having some key members of a school system armed with a CCL weapon. These individuals would need to be very familiar and train regularly with local responders to ensure no Blue on Blue accidents takes place, but yes I think I could support this.

In my opinion such legislation would also need to be bundled with legislation that would place Assault Rifles in an NFA category, and then new legislation to diagnose and treat the mentally unstable as well as regulations for what, how and where weapons will be in places that house these individuals.

What do you all think?

I would agree. As I'm not American but more a person looking from "outside" to the US I would appreciate to all the challenges you've mentioned. Mentally unstabled persons, for example, should never be enabled to purchase or even own a gun. The idea of the US constitution was far away from the ideas of all the advocates that now claim that guns were allowed and possessing them would be a normal way of social interaction. See, the wild west has gone, and America has come up to a highly civilazed country, and should it be necessary to wear a gun when you buy s.th. in a supermarket?

Yea, in the US it wouldn't be wrong. Because one of the violators could have one...

[Armed Citizen]

Sorry bout that Chris, I sorta went and forgot about this.
So, I kinda knew all the details ya listed above about the military and police so I didnt highlight it on pourpose. I was more interested in that there part about bein preferred by mass murders. Three occurences out of how many, this here year alone?
How many shootins we had over the years and how many have involved assault rifles?
Thats what I am getting at.


:2gun:

That is a very good question, and I sure didn't know the answer to it - so I had to do some research. Thank you for posing it, as I learned something new too.

One website did a pretty good job of looking at the mass killings that have occurred since 1982. They counted 62 mass killings, easily more than 1 per year. Of those mass killings 3/4th of them were carried out with legally owned guns. Of the 142 guns that were owned, or were in the possession of the shooters at the time of the shootings, a total of 35 of those were assault weapons. The majority used semi-auto pistols (68). Then at the bottom of the list were revolvers (20), and shotguns (19).

It is fairly easy to see that semi-auto, and high magazine weapons are greatly preferred.

I might be gettin myslef into a heap o trouble fer this as I am obviously a big ole' pro-gun advocate and all: but tell me what ya think of this.

I suggested the followin ta my state Governor, legislature, Senator and Congressmen.
All none huntin/ non shotgun firearms require a license to own and purchase ammo fer.
All magazines ta be reduced to less than 10 rnds (Handgun and fer Rifles).
Make it illegal ta peer ta peer sell firearms. Force and FFL ta be involved to legally transfer the gun to the new owner.
Create atleast a 24 hour waitin period fer all firearm purchases.
This is a partial list an imam pretty sure I can add to it as I continue ta learn from all these debates.
I refuse to allow a dissolving of the 2nd amendment or the outlawin of any specific breed of gun. As my signature says at the bottom there, firearms are our last line o defense against tyranny, whether it be the Bush style or the Obama style or some yet ta be seen monstrosity. As has already been posted, Hitler had plans to remove firearms from Russian citizens when he conquered them. Those unable to wage war will lose their freedom. I will not be one of these casualties of history.

Also, glad ta see my hunch was right that military style rifle were not the most used weapons of the murders. I had a hunch that was true. Tho, I be puttin very little stock in anything from mojo. Jus sayin is all.




:2gun:

[chris_brown207]

I might be gettin myslef into a heap o trouble fer this as I am obviously a big ole' pro-gun advocate and all: but tell me what ya think of this.

I suggested the followin ta my state Governor, legislature, Senator and Congressmen.
All none huntin/ non shotgun firearms require a license to own and purchase ammo fer.
All magazines ta be reduced to less than 10 rnds (Handgun and fer Rifles).
Make it illegal ta peer ta peer sell firearms. Force and FFL ta be involved to legally transfer the gun to the new owner.
Create atleast a 24 hour waitin period fer all firearm purchases.
This is a partial list an imam pretty sure I can add to it as I continue ta learn from all these debates.
I refuse to allow a dissolving of the 2nd amendment or the outlawin of any specific breed of gun. As my signature says at the bottom there, firearms are our last line o defense against tyranny, whether it be the Bush style or the Obama style or some yet ta be seen monstrosity. As has already been posted, Hitler had plans to remove firearms from Russian citizens when he conquered them. Those unable to wage war will lose their freedom. I will not be one of these casualties of history.

Also, glad ta see my hunch was right that military style rifle were not the most used weapons of the murders. I had a hunch that was true. Tho, I be puttin very little stock in anything from mojo. Jus sayin is all.


:2gun:

What do I think? I think if we can find middle ground, then our elected politicians should be able to also... great recommendations. I think the only thing I would add is any weapon above and beyond this list be added to the NFA category.

Thank you for putting forth your suggestions (anyone can criticize a position, but recommending a solution takes cajones my friend!).

[chris_brown207]

I think it's above most of our pay grades!

I think a difficulty is trying to objectively determine the line where someone can or cannot own a gun. And would it have been effective in the case of Adam Lanza?

I agree, that is a hard line to draw and there probably needs to be a good consensus on how we do that - with both sides of the issue in on the conversation.