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?

[otseng]

You seem to be at least accepting that rifles can be useful but you still don't like them for some reason.

I do not personally have a dislike for rifles. And though I do not currently own any, I wouldn't mind personally owning them. And, years ago, I was of the opinion that there should be no banishment of any guns, including assault weapons. Heck, if someone wanted to own a tank I would not have cared.

But, unfortunately, we are experiencing too many mass murders now. I know I'm responsible with a gun. But, there are too many people now that are irresponsible with guns. So, I think something needs to be done and not just chant, "guns are not the problem."

I think we all agree that some sort of change in gun regulations is necessary. I haven't heard anyone arguing that status quo is fine, even among gun enthusiasts. So, the question is how much regulation can be agreed upon.

I also think we all agree that a total ban of all guns is out of the picture. Though some argue for it, it's not going to happen.

Any solution proposed has got to be practical and implementable. So, though it'd be nice to have metal detectors on every doorway in every school manned by an armed security guard, that's not a practical solution.

Unfortunately, any solution would negatively impact responsible citizens. Most people are not going to commit an act of terrorism on a plane, but we are all negatively impacted by the TSA at airports. A solution should ideally minimize negatively impacting responsible citizens. But, it should also have an impact on reducing gun fatalities.

That is why I am for banning assault weapons. I think I would be responsible with owning one, but now I cannot trust that everybody else would be. Banning them would minimally impact responsible citizens because they are not often used for hunting, competitions, or range shooting. But, it would potentially decrease gun fatalities during mass killings.

The only realistic scenario I can see where a responsible citizen could use an assault rifle is against an armed group of people (LA mobs, tyranical governments, attacking aliens). These scenarios are rare, so banning assault rifles would have minimal impact.

A complete ban is my ideal, but I would settle for more restrictions on the purchase of them.

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.

If it will not be harmful to the general public and can decrease gun fatalities, it should then be seriously considered.

[otseng]

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.

Here's a list where there were over 10 deaths and weapons used:

Sandy Hook Elementary
28 deaths
Bushmaster XM-15
Glock 20
Sig 9mm

Aurora shooting
12 deaths, 58 injured
Smith & Wesson M&P15
Remington Model 870 shotgun
Glock 22

Fort Hood shooting
13 deaths, 29 injured
FN Five-seven

Binghamton shootings
14 deaths, 4 injured
Beretta Hanguns

Virginia Tech massacre
32 deaths, 17 injured
Walther and Glock handguns

Columbine High School
13 deaths, 21 injured
Hi-Point 995 Carbine
TEC-9
12-guage shotguns

[Angel]

Lets draw some more distinction between murders w/ assault rifles vs. murders with hand guns and shotguns. This is just in the United States from FBI data.

2011 Murders using firearms:
In 2011, there were 6,220 murders done with handguns.
In 2011, there were 356 murders done with shotguns.
In 2011, there were 323 murders done with rifles.

Source for homicides by weapon type: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

Here's my analysis that's relevant to my point which I put in red font towards the end of this post. Using shotguns and handguns, there were a total of 6,576 murders in 2011. So there were 6,253 more murders done with shotguns and handguns than murders done with rifles. Now so far, we've only covered the "illegal" use of guns so lets also look at the "legal" (self-defense) use of guns.



2011 legal or justified homicides by civilians:
163 "justified" homicides using shotguns and handguns
12 justified homicides using rifles

Source for justified homicides by civilians: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... a-table-15

So lets put this in a ratio of legal to non-legal uses comparing rifles with handguns/shotguns. So for handguns/shotguns, we have a legal to illegal ratio of 163 (justified homicide) to 6253 (unjustified homicide). So out of the 6,413 total homicides with hand guns and shot guns, the legal use accounts for 163/6413=.0254 or 2.5%. If I look at rifle deaths the same way it would be 12 (justified homicide) to 323 (unjustified homicides). So out of 335 total homicides with rifles, 12/335=.0358 or 3.6% account for legal use. If my math is correct, then both types of guns are misused more than being rightly used which is a sad statistic. I hope that I've shown that there are more justified uses of assault rifles than there are justified uses of hand guns and shot guns.

Keep in mind, these results don't account for murders and other crimes done without firearms. The results are also based on"homicides" with guns and not "non-fatal injuries" which should be considered since shooting someone does not always lead to killing them. Another factor not explained in the above results is who used the gun (criminals or a legal gun carrier) and how the gun was obtained (illegally/trafficked or legally purchased).

[otseng]

There are some points that are missing.

One is the distinction between hunting rifles and assault rifles. I do not think hunting rifles should be banned.

But another point -- which is my main argument -- is that you didn't account for hunting, competitive shooting and range shooting as legal uses of guns. Self-defense is not the only legal way to use guns.

[otseng]

Aurora shooting
12 deaths, 58 injured
Smith & Wesson M&P15
Remington Model 870 shotgun
Glock 22

I think the number of deaths would've been much higher if the M&P15 did not jam after 30 rounds. He had a 100 round magazine on it. And to my knowledge, only assault weapons have magazine capacities this high.

[Angel]

There are some points that are missing.

One is the distinction between hunting rifles and assault rifles. I do not think hunting rifles should be banned.

Hunting rifles and assault rifles fall under rifles, by definition. If you wanted to view murder statistics with assault rifles only then that would've given a lower number of murders since it's based on murders from ONE type of rifle as opposed to adding up all of the murders from ALL rifles. Either way, your point does not take away from the fact, according to FBI data, that hand guns are used to commit more murders than assault rifles or all rifles, collectively. Chris_brown207 even provided one source that shows that hand guns are used in the majority of mass shootings. I know the media has been focusing on the most recent mass shooting cases which happen to involve assault rifles, but that selective focus by the media does not take away from the overall statistic of hand guns being used more in murders and even in mass murders.

But another point -- which is my main argument -- is that you didn't account for hunting, competitive shooting and range shooting as legal uses of guns. Self-defense is not the only legal way to use guns.

You have a valid point IF you can provide data on how many times firearms that aren't assault rifles are used for sport. Assault rifles are also used for sport, as well. In fact, I personally find assault rifles not only cooler looking but also more fun to fire than handguns, shotguns, and other rifles.

I should also say that I don't completely agree with your standard for determining if assault rifles should be banned. 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'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.

[Passenger]

(...) 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.

[Passenger]

I forgot, in addition to my previous post: One more possible way could be to choose and appoint some reliable students who were experienced with guns and qualified in character (and I guess in the US there are many even young men who are experienced in using guns by sport shooting contests and so forth) to hold the authority of accessing a gun disposed in a locked container in the class-room, secured by a personal code only known by authorized students or pupils (and nobody except the school management and the police should know who they are).

In a moment of menace when the alerts are indicating that an amok-shooter has entered the school area they would have access to the guns (automatic weapons for best defend) and protect all their class-mates from a brainsick psychopath who could be successfully stopped by conterstriking him until the police appear. That would be better than only locking the doors and praying and waiting for the killer. The government that guarantees the second constitutional amandment should also guarantee the ability for students and teachers to defend their own lifes by enforcing them to use lethal weapons.

[otseng]

Either way, your point does not take away from the fact, according to FBI data, that hand guns are used to commit more murders than assault rifles or all rifles, collectively.

I've never said anything to the contrary.

But another point -- which is my main argument -- is that you didn't account for hunting, competitive shooting and range shooting as legal uses of guns. Self-defense is not the only legal way to use guns.

You have a valid point IF you can provide data on how many times firearms that aren't assault rifles are used for sport. Assault rifles are also used for sport, as well.

Unfortunately, I don't think people collect data and make a distinction between hunting rifles and assault rifles, so I'm unaware of such studies.

My data would only be from the people I know and what I've seen. All the hunters I know of hunt with shotguns, hunting rifles, or bows. None hunt with an assault rifle. Banning assault rifles would affect none of these people when they hunt. Sure, there can be some people that exist that hunt with assault rifles, but it would be a small minority.

In fact, I personally find assault rifles not only cooler looking but also more fun to fire than handguns, shotguns, and other rifles.

Yes, they are cooler looking and more fun to fire.

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.

The problem can also be fixed with stricter standards for obtaining assault rifles, periodic mental evaluation, periodic national background checks, etc.

I'm not against these things. Again, if banning assault rifles is not possible, I'd be for more restrictions on them.

[otseng]

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.

Who can clearly assert that a person is mentally disabled and shouldn't possess a gun?

This is the difficulty. And a person's mental state changes over time. Someone's mental state to commit mass murder might only be once in a lifetime and would never get detected by a test.

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 would agree. I don't see how any test can predict who will be a mass killer.

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

Yes, the US has the largest gun ownership in the world. And it's logically true that the less guns there are, the less gun related deaths there would be. If there are zero guns, then there'd be zero gun related deaths. But, it's more than simply the number of guns. I've been researching this and I'll present it in another post.