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]

Nobody goes into combat with only an assault rifle (as far as I know). But, the main weapon for combat would be the assault rifle. I think this would be the same mentality for a mass murderer.

Actually, until recently, most grounds troops did go in with only their rifle. However, most units that I know of now have a 9mm as a sidearm as well as a rifle when going in country. So, I take it you are looking at pistols as well? What are your seeking?

[otseng]

So, I take it you are looking at pistols as well? What are your seeking?

Just an observation that someone seeking to kill as many people as possible will arm themselves as much as they can. This will include both assault rifles and handguns.

I'm not suggesting banning handguns. Though its use is common in mass murders, there are also many legally using handguns. It would penalize too many law abiding people to ban handguns.

[otseng]

I've been debating in the How good is god, really? and a thought came to me. I've been arguing that suffering exists because humans have a free will. Without the ability to choose, we would have neither good nor evil.

I think one reason why we do have so much violence in the US is that we have the greatest freedom in the world. Compared to any other major country, the citizens have a wide range of freedom to speak and act. But, this freedom can result in good and evil. In a highly controlled state, freedom is decreased and so is evil and good.

We don't have unlimited freedom, and it is often restricted by laws, but, on the whole, we have a significant amount of freedom. We have freedom of religion. It can be used for good, but it can also be used for bad. We have freedom of speech. Likewise, it can be used for good or bad. We have freedom of gun ownership. And citizens certainly do exercise that right, for good and for bad.

So, the easiest way to decrease evil (though not necessarily the best way) is to restrict freedom.

[A Troubled Man]

However, fire a few rounds from an AK-47 into the air in front of them and they'll scatter like roaches.

What if they also have AK-47s?

Then, it would be a mexican standoff and the thugs looking for easy pickings would move on to a house or business that wasn't protected as well.

[Angel]

but I also hope you acknowledge that you have no evidence for the use of guns for sport.

What types of guns?

I was referring to the amount of times that handguns, shotguns, and non-assault rifles are used for sport compared to the amount of times that assault rifles are used for sport. You wanted to give to make it appear as if assault rifles are completely useless or unnecessary, even for sport. Now I want you to back up your claims beyond just telling me about the SELECTIVE news media focus of the on recent mass murders involving assault rifles.

Also, I used a semi-automatic AK 47 rifle for sport, and there are plenty of videos on YouTube showing them being used for sport. Is that not enough for you to go by to show that they can be used for sport, as well? Keep in mind, I'm just trying to follow the point of your logic eventhough I don't agree with it. I don't agree with it because number of times that a type of gun is used as sport should not factor into if we should ban it or not, especially on the issue of "PROTECTION" vs. committing crimes. What sparked this gun debate issue were mass MURDERS and not how many deers or paper targets were destroyed for sport.

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)?

Most people I know who use guns have not used it for a justified homicide. Actually, I don't know of any. And that's not because I don't know a lot of people who use guns.

So is that why you resort to comparing which type of gun is used more for "sport" to determine if it should be banned? If assault rifles are used for sport about 100 times per year and non-assault rifle firearms used 101 times a year for sport, does that make a case for why we should ban assault rifles?

You admit to not knowing anyone personally who have used non-assault rifles firearms for justified homicides but yet you're okay with not banning them. Yet when it comes to not knowing people who have used assault rifles for justified homicides you want to ban them. This clearly shows a double standard and it's not much different from the bias shown among some in the mainstream media when it comes to assault rifles.

Afterall, one important, if not the only important reason for a gun is for protection.

Yes, it's one reason.

Well in terms of if a gun is useful for protection, which is the point of concealed carry or having a gun OUTSIDE of a shooting range or hunting grounds, then protection is probably the only reason to consider. WE can already establish that ALL guns are dangerous, but what I'm not getting from you is a logical and/or evidence, esp. in light of my evidence like in post #123, for why we should ban assault rifles. I've seen cops bring out assault rifles when they need heavy fire power, esp. when dealing with a "group or gang" of thugs so are you against that?

In other words, rifles have a higher rate of self-defense use than handguns and shotguns.

Your own data shows that 153 self-defense uses of handguns, 10 for shotguns, and 12 with a rifle. And I would suspect only a small percentage of rifles is with an assault rifle.

Based on what? RECENT news media coverage on assault rifles or RECENT news media coverage on assault rifles?

[Angel]

However, fire a few rounds from an AK-47 into the air in front of them and they'll scatter like roaches.

What if they also have AK-47s?

Then, it would be a mexican standoff and the thugs looking for easy pickings would move on to a house or business that wasn't protected as well.

Precisely. Now I can see how it would be hard for some who are middle to upper class, living in middle to upper class neighborhoods, to imagine having to face a scenario like what you described. But their environment does not take away the risk in other environments or situations where you'd have to defend yourself against a mass number of people who are trying to do you harm. I already mentioned two examples right here in America, LA riots and Hurricane Katrine looters, in the latter case, there are reports of even some police officers abandoning their posts.

Mayor Jaime Rodrguez Caldern of Nuevo Leon, Mexico, survived 2 assasination attempts by drug cartels members. The latest one involved a 20 minute gunfight where a gang surrounded his bulletproof SUV and tried to take him out. One place to read about that is here. I remember watching a CNN documentary of drug violence in Mexico where the mayor talks about the first assasination attempt on him involved 30 gunmen coming to his house and he kept them away by using his own firepower until police backup arrived. If given an option of choosing a hand gun or an assault rifle to defend yourself in this situation, I'm sure even the most liberal of politicians would pick an assault rifle.

[otseng]

Is that not enough for you to go by to show that they can be used for sport, as well?

I already said that that assault rifles can be used for sport. That is not my argument.

What sparked this gun debate issue were mass MURDERS and not how many deers or paper targets were destroyed for sport.

Precisely. And I think we both acknowledge that if one wants to kill a bunch of people quickly, the weapon of choice is an assault rifle. And I don't think that idea would escape the mind of a mass murderer.

If assault rifles are used for sport about 100 times per year and non-assault rifle firearms used 101 times a year for sport, does that make a case for why we should ban assault rifles?

If it's that close, then my argument fails. My guess is that it would be different by at least a factor of 100. There are probably over 100 hunters that use a hunting rifle/shotgun for every hunter that hunts with an assault rifle. The problem is, it is only my hunch, and I have no empirical data to prove it, so I readily admit that my assertion cannot be proven.

You admit to not knowing anyone personally who have used non-assault rifles firearms for justified homicides but yet you're okay with not banning them. Yet when it comes to not knowing people who have used assault rifles for justified homicides you want to ban them. This clearly shows a double standard and it's not much different from the bias shown among some in the mainstream media when it comes to assault rifles.

Again, the test is not simply self-defense, but all legal uses.

I've seen cops bring out assault rifles when they need heavy fire power, esp. when dealing with a "group or gang" of thugs so are you against that?

The government can still use assault rifles. I'm not concerned about the government committing mass murder.

RECENT news media coverage on assault rifles or RECENT news media coverage on assault rifles?

Why the preoccupation with the news media coverage? I rarely even watch any TV, let alone the news.

[A Troubled Man]

Precisely. And I think we both acknowledge that if one wants to kill a bunch of people quickly, the weapon of choice is an assault rifle. And I don't think that idea would escape the mind of a mass murderer.

Or, fly a commercial airliner into a skyscraper, or strap on some dynamite and run into a crowded market, or release poisonous gas into an underground subway system, or... the list goes on and on as to how one could kill a bunch of people much more quickly and effectively than an assault rifle.

But of course, we know that as the sale of assault rifles dramatically increases, violent crimes overall are decreasing.

Perhaps then, mass murdering is not about assault rifles.

[Angel]

What sparked this gun debate issue were mass MURDERS and not how many deers or paper targets were destroyed for sport.

Precisely. And I think we both acknowledge that if one wants to kill a bunch of people quickly, the weapon of choice is an assault rifle. And I don't think that idea would escape the mind of a mass murderer.

A bunch of people can also get killed with handguns which is why out of the most recent popularized shootings, the Virginia Tech shooter (using 2 handguns) has the most murders. So really, you're not giving me anything worth banning assault rifles that wouldn't apply to also banning handguns because both can be used for mass killings. And why only look at mass shootings instead of also looking ANY type of gun murder? ARe you aware that there are more gun murders with handguns than there are with assault rifles?

If assault rifles are used for sport about 100 times per year and non-assault rifle firearms used 101 times a year for sport, does that make a case for why we should ban assault rifles?

If it's that close, then my argument fails. My guess is that it would be different by at least a factor of 100. There are probably over 100 hunters that use a hunting rifle/shotgun for every hunter that hunts with an assault rifle. The problem is, it is only my hunch, and I have no empirical data to prove it, so I readily admit that my assertion cannot be proven.

So not only do you try to argue off of assumption and unreasonable standards but now you want to set an arbitrary number of how many times an assault rifle has to be used in order for it to be considered useful, even for sport? If hand guns are used more for sport than non-assault rifles, are you in favor of banning non-assault rifles, as well? At what arbitrary number would you set that as? So if we increase the use of assault rifles for sport, to make it on par with handguns, you know since sales are increasing with assault rifles, then you'd be okay with assault rifles?

You admit to not knowing anyone personally who have used non-assault rifles firearms for justified homicides but yet you're okay with not banning them. Yet when it comes to not knowing people who have used assault rifles for justified homicides you want to ban them. This clearly shows a double standard and it's not much different from the bias shown among some in the mainstream media when it comes to assault rifles.

Again, the test is not simply self-defense, but all legal uses.

No, those are your terms and not some objective standard. I argued that your standard is not relevant to if we should ban guns and in fact i put quite a dent in your reasoning since we find that handgun, shotgun, and non-assault rifles murders are THOUSANDS more than the murders done with assault rifles. So even IF non-assault firearms are used much more for sport more than assault rifles then surely the HIGH NUMBER of murders done with handguns and other non-assault firearms would take away from your point about the ratio of legal to illegal use.

RECENT news media coverage on assault rifles or RECENT news media coverage on assault rifles?

Why the preoccupation with the news media coverage? I rarely even watch any TV, let alone the news.

I'm sure you've watched enough tv and read enough newspaper to know about the recent mass shootings. And from what I can tell you're displaying the same knee jerk reaction to just want to ban a gun. If a gun falls out of someone's pocket, ban it. If THREE people use assault rifles, ban it. Are those really the only ways to fix a problem especially when you have NO evidence to back your claims or are you making a decision out of EMOTION stimulated and reinforced by media fixation on assualt rifles? And if it's not the media then I still see you as having no good reasons to ban assault rifles other than an unreasonable knee jerk reaction to ban ban ban and not think objectively of ALL the ways a problem can be fixed so we can weed out the UNNECESSARY and unreasonable proposals. I'll let the readers be the judge which is likely.

[The Ex-Mormon]

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?

Religions, primarily monotheistic religions, have a claim to be the only by God commanded religion . Their "rooster" shall be the single umptieth rooster in the chicken run. This was the reason in the past that a religion wanted to destroy or subject the other religion. So violence is a "Christian" mark.
Only related to your question; it is not the single umptieth reason for the growing violence in the USA. It shares my opinion primarily:

1.latch weapon laws (every idiot can buy a weapon)
2. Fear ( fear for what is primarily "different". It is colored person, homosexuals, self-confident women, or a "left" politic
3. This stir up of fear with the help of the media(do you have noticed before, thatfirst, colored persons or Latinos are usually suspected?)
4. Religious populists and weapon fanatics orientated towards the right (as one of what I count the KKK also); the ones on her "white" prerogative tap.

I hope I could be helpful with my comment.