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?

[Passenger]

Only banning assault rifles wouldn't fix the problem because other guns like hand- and shotguns are used more in criminal outrage and murders.

No single factor would "fix the problem". The only purpose of banning assault weapons is to reduce the fatality count, not to completely stop mass killings.

Yes, I agree. The result might only be to reduce the fatality number of victims. But something has to be done to prevent those school shootings. I think that the offender has one primary ambition: to shoot as much persons he can. The more he kills, the more success he has from his pathologic point of view. His own life doesn't count for him any more, because he knows about the consequences and the justice afterwards. So, the question would be how to win some time and to keep him under control by counterstriking his attacks. What would you think about my suggestion in my last post? It was about choosing by character and abilities some students or elder pupils and authorize them to have access to automatic weapons secured and locked at special places (in the class rooms) when an amok-shooter should start attacking the school.

It's the same with those special agents in civil planes who are there among the passengers and look like passengers to counterstrike terroristic attacks. Why shouldn't two or three young man of sixteen to twenty years of age be able to counterstrike a twenty years old rampage shooter? I can't forget the photos of him who shot and killed twenty-six persons in the school in Newtown. He was nothing in physical appearence on a photo released here in the news, a small and fragile looking young boy. Only his madness and his hate and the weapons were making him strong, and his pathologic intention to kill as much as he could. I am absolutely convinced he could have been stopped by fast counterstriking action for enough time to save several lifes until the police would have stopped him finally.

One more effect would be: first, the impulsion for future school shooting scenarios wouldn't be so strong, as the high number of victims would not be so easy to achieve for the potential shooter. Secondly: If someone has to calculate with counteraction and intentness he would think twice about his intention. Whenever a mentally disordered person that seeks for vengeance and wants to kill as much persons as he can knows that he could be stopped before ending his "crusade" he probably wouldn't carry out his spontaneous plan or decision. At least the potential victims should have be given a chance, and the violator would know he couldn't simply step inside the class room without being received by a counterstrike.

Correction: Adam Lanza was not fifteen years of age in the recent Newtown rampage. He was twenty. But one photo released in the news showed him on a photo of the year 2005 where he looked like a harmless and fragile young boy.

[Passenger]

Correction: Adam Lanza was not fifteen years of age in the recent Newtown rampage. He was twenty. But one photo released in the news showed him on a photo of the year 2005 where he looked like a harmless and fragile young boy.

[chris_brown207]

Yes, I agree. The result might only be to reduce the fatality number of victims. But something has to be done to prevent those school shootings. I think that the offender has one primary ambition: to shoot as much persons he can. The more he kills, the more success he has from his pathologic point of view. His own life doesn't count for him any more, because he knows about the consequences and the justice afterwards. So, the question would be how to win some time and to keep him under control by counterstriking his attacks. What would you think about my suggestion in my last post? It was about choosing by character and abilities some students or elder pupils and authorize them to have access to automatic weapons secured and locked at special places (in the class rooms) when an amok-shooter should start attacking the school.

It's the same with those special agents in civil planes who are there among the passengers and look like passengers to counterstrike terroristic attacks. Why shouldn't two or three young man of sixteen to twenty years of age be able to counterstrike a twenty years old rampage shooter? I can't forget the photos of him who shot and killed twenty-six persons in the school in Newtown. He was nothing in physical appearence on a photo released here in the news, a small and fragile looking young boy. Only his madness and his hate and the weapons were making him strong, and his pathologic intention to kill as much as he could. I am absolutely convinced he could have been stopped by fast counterstriking action for enough time to save several lifes until the police would have stopped him finally.

One more effect would be: first, the impulsion for future school shooting scenarios wouldn't be so strong, as the high number of victims would not be so easy to achieve for the potential shooter. Secondly: If someone has to calculate with counteraction and intentness he would think twice about his intention. Whenever a mentally disordered person that seeks for vengeance and wants to kill as much persons as he can knows that he could be stopped before ending his "crusade" he probably wouldn't carry out his spontaneous plan or decision. At least the potential victims should have be given a chance, and the violator would know he couldn't simply step inside the class room without being received by a counterstrike.

Correction: Adam Lanza was not fifteen years of age in the recent Newtown rampage. He was twenty. But one photo released in the news showed him on a photo of the year 2005 where he looked like a harmless and fragile young boy.

There is a difference between the scenario you described, and the scenario those at Sandy Hook, Oregon Mall, and Aurora Theater faced. The scenario you described is armed and trained men in place to rapidly counter any scenario they could face from lesser armed attackers. The situation at these three mass shootings would be more similar to the North Hollywood Shootout - had there been armed staff within the target locations, very likely they would not be armed or trained to deal with the situation that occurred. Even police have faired poorly (as North Hollywood showed us) when they are outgunned, and out equipped.

I am not saying that there shouldn't be armed personnel, I am just saying we have to be realistic about the success they would still have achieved. Keep in mind, there were armed guards at Columbine.

Arming staff is only one part of a wide strategy to combat mass shootings. We also need to address the legislation that has allowed these mentally unstable citizens to have easy access to the military grade weaponry that gives them such a huge tactical advantage. And we also need to look at how these citizens fell through any kind of net to treat and help them before they got to that point.

[Angel]

(...) I've already provided some data in post #123 that shows that non-assault rifle firearms (shotguns, hand guns, and non-assault rifles) are used more in murders, and even mass murders (refer to chris_brown207) than assault rifles. So based on data so far, you are already in conflict with your own standard. Even if assault rifles were used more for illegal purposes than legal purposes, it doesn't always take banning them to fix the problem. The problem can also be fixed with stricter standards for obtaining assault rifles, periodic mental evaluation, periodic national background checks, etc.

I think you are right. Only banning assault rifles wouldn't fix the problem because other guns like hand- and shotguns are used more in criminal outrage and murders. Stricter standards would certainly help, but that means an enormous administration effort and could be understood as some kind of intervention in personal rights. Who can clearly assert that a person is mentally disabled and shouldn't possess a gun? The behaviour of the majority of mass murderers was not obviously conspicuous or abnormal in most of the cases (see Brejwik in Norway or the latest case in Connecticut) before they carried out their intentions. At least they were not abnormally aggressive or known as mentally dangerous before they committed their mass murder crimes.

It would be interesting to find some crime statistics relating to the quantity of mental disorders in correlation to the shootings. But I wouldn't be sure this could be very helpful, because the majority of shooters were not significant in behaviour or mental appearance before they went into action. I think, and I am afraid, concerning the school shootings, there doesn't exist a practicable solution to prevent shooting attempts but only to answer in a counter strike by special school agents (like in aeroplains) or weaponed teachers to minimize the victims of further attemps by those amok-going shooters. If you can't minimize the quantity of guns in the USA as long as the people still insist on their constitutional rights and as long guns are widespreaded nationwide in that big quantities, there in fact would be only one solution: to protect schools and similar institutions continuously by special agents or specially skilled teachers. To say it like this: as long as the guns are allowed to exist in the hands of everyone this kind of danger only can be answered by guns - unfortunately.

The mental problems of these recent mass shooters may not have been hard to notice because they were good at hiding their illnesses, but rather because no one in the family, friends, etc was really looking for mental illness or to act on it. If you're not looking for it then most likely you will not find or notice the mental problems. A mental evaluation done by a trained expert would be some of the first steps to identify any mental problems and not even this basic step is done for gun owners. We really have a problem with our healtcare system overall because there's a lack of emphasis and resources/funding for mental problems and even other less problematic mental problems. And we should not only be focusing on treating but also preventative care, so that way that will reduce the chances of mental problems arising in the first place.

You make a good point about the security of schools because that's one thing that I believe we can start right now. The thing is, I don't say we need armed personnel in schools just to protect against other guns in the hands of psychos but really to protect against ANYONE, armed or unarmed, who tries to enter a school to do harm. Lets not single out guns because nearly anything can be used as a weapon. Take for example in China where a man with a knife entered a school and stabbed and slashed 22 elementary school kids and 1 adult (source CBS news). Eventhough, this man did not have a gun but a person with a gun in the school could've stopped him. In fact, if there were guns in the school and the attacker knew that, it's less likely he would've chosen to enter the school which is why you won't find any of these NUTCASES stepping foot in a shooting range, police station, military base because they know they'd get their head blown off.

[chris_brown207]

You make a good point about the security of schools because that's one thing that I believe we can start right now. The thing is, I don't say we need armed personnel in schools just to protect against other guns but really to protect against ANYONE, armed or unarmed, who is tries to enter a school to do harm. Lets not single out guns because nearly anything can be used as a weapon. Take for example in China where a man with a knife entered a school and stabbed and slashed 22 elementary school kids and 1 adult (source CBS news). Eventhough, this many did not have a gun but a person with a gun in the school could've stopped him. In fact, if they were guns in the school and the attacker knew that, it's less likely he would've chosen to enter the school which is why you won't find any of these NUTCASES stepping foot in a shooting range, police station, military base because they know they'd get their head blown off.

For the most part, you would be correct about attackers shying away from targets that are amed, unless they are even more heavily armed. The North Hollywood Shootout was a text book example of that. If you remember - it was a bank robbery carried out by assailants with high magazine capacity Assault Rifles, and Body Armor. When the police responded, the robbers actively engaged the police - who were less armed. 11 officers and seven civilians were injured in the ensuing shootout. It took almost an hour for the battle to end, and it only did when the police armed themselves similarly as the robbers. (And also keep in mind, there was an armed guard at Columbine - who did exchange fire with the attackers, but was not able to stop the attackers or do anything further until backup arrived).

The way I see it, arming school staff should only be 1/2 or even 1/3 of a solution. We also have to look at how easy it is for shooters to get weapons and armor that provide them with such a tactical advantage, as well as how these individuals seem to be slipping through any kind of mental health net.

[Angel]

...
Just so others will know your standard (also explained in post #96), you explained your standard as being if the gun is used more for illegal purposes than legal purposes, then it should be banned.

I never said that assault weapons are used more illegally than legally. I said one should look at the ratio of legal to illegal use for various types of guns and compare the ratios between the types of guns. Looking at the ratios would determine how much of an impact would a ban be on negatively affecting the legal use of a particular type of gun.

You did not simply say that one should "look". You actually drew a conclusion not only when you said to Goat that we should ban assault rifles but also when you said assault rifles are used more for illegal purposes than for legal purposes. I will quote your argument below.

...
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.

As you have been shown with FBI data, the ratio of legal use to illegal use is worse for handguns, shotguns and other non-assault weapon firearms than the ratio for assault rifles. I showed this clearly in post #123. In that post, I showed that BOTH types of weapons, firearms that aren't assault rifles vs. rifles, are used more for ILLEGAL purposes than for legal purposes BUT the percentage or rate of ILLEGAL use for non-assault rifle firearms (handguns, shotguns, etc.) is higher than the percentage of illegal uses for rifles, and that's compared to each of their overall uses, respectively. And remember if we just went by assault rifle murders instead of ALL rifle murders, then number of murders would be lower since you're only going by murders by ONE type of rifle. So with this fact, you still want to ban assault rifles over banning the gun that's used more frequently to murder people. This is why I suspect your judgement is tainted by some of the recent media propaganda against assault rifles.

[otseng]

What would you think about my suggestion in my last post? It was about choosing by character and abilities some students or elder pupils and authorize them to have access to automatic weapons secured and locked at special places (in the class rooms) when an amok-shooter should start attacking the school.

In the case of Sandy Hook elementary, who would be such a person? I certainly think no students there would be qualified.

People suggest that the principle should be armed. I'm not too enthusiastic about that idea. He/she will need to be well trained to take down an intruder. I think police officers would be the most trained, so I prefer cops instead.

It's the same with those special agents in civil planes who are there among the passengers and look like passengers to counterstrike terroristic attacks.

Since they are trained for this, I have no problem with them.

Why shouldn't two or three young man of sixteen to twenty years of age be able to counterstrike a twenty years old rampage shooter?

Sorry, but I don't trust a teenager to handle a gun by himself. Also, think of the power that teenager would yield just by having the title "Designated rampage counterstrike shooter".

It least the potential victims should have be given a chance, and the violator would know he couldn't simply step inside the class room without being received by a counterstrike.

Yes, I think schools should have at least one person that is armed with a gun, preferably a police officer.

[otseng]

This is why I suspect your judgement is tainted by some of the recent media propaganda against assault rifles.

No, not tainted by propaganda, but just makes logical sense to me.

As you have been shown with FBI data, the ratio of legal use to illegal use is worse for handguns, shotguns and other non-assault weapon firearms than the ratio for assault rifles.

I already addressed this. The FBI data you presented only compared self-defense to murder. Do you not acknowledge that there are other legal uses of guns besides self-defense, like hunting, recreational shooting, and competition shooting?

[Angel]

...
As you have been shown with FBI data, the ratio of legal use to illegal use is worse for handguns, shotguns and other non-assault weapon firearms than the ratio for assault rifles.

I already addressed this. The FBI data you presented only compared self-defense to murder. Do you not acknowledge that there are other legal uses of guns besides self-defense, like hunting, recreational shooting, and competition shooting?

Okay, I acknowledge that there can be a difference but I also hope you acknowledge that you have no evidence for the use of guns for sport. So the bottom line is your argument for banning assault rifles is based on your assumption.

But isn't it important to look at the legal usage of guns just in terms of justified homicides (legal self-defesnse) and unjustified homicides (murder)? Afterall, one important, if not the only important reason for a gun is for protection. When people are dying, I'm sure the last thing to consider would be shooting at geese in the air or other target practice. So my point is still valid in terms of using guns for protection. In other words, rifles have a higher rate of self-defense use than handguns and shotguns. We can look at it the other way around and say there are more murders with handguns and shotguns than there are with rifles.

[100%atheist]

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?

I have a slightly different question. I am not sure if it deserves a separate topic or can fit here.

If Christians truly believe that:
(1) the best place for them to be is in heaven with God
(2) the only requirement to achieve this goal is their belief in God and obedience to God's will
(3) everything that happens is a part of God's plan

then why do some of them need guns if they have no intention to kill themselves or their loved ones in order to achieve their goal pointed out in (1) by the fastest possible means? If someone comes to kill them, why do they need any other protection rather than the sole protection by God's will?