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]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum

(...) 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.

I agree with you on each point you've mentioned.

"..., 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."

That's the point. First they want to kill as many as they could, and the higher the risk to get their own head blown off before they have achieved what they want the lower would be their will to actualize their intention.

[Passenger]

[qu
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.

All right, you've given good arguments. Students would only have limited qualifications, and at Sandy Hook elementary, of course, there wouldn't be no one of the pupils to have the qualifications required in such a case. The same applies for the principals. Police officers should do the job.

"Also, think of the power that teenager would yield just by having the title "Designated rampage counterstrike shooter". Yes, you are right. But it should be simply understood as a (desperate) suggestion in a "brain storming" way, it's only an idea, but not to implement. Ok - police officers or special agents or private security guards (why not retired soldiers or marines?) should watch the schools, and this should be financed by charging a special tax on guns and rifles and all weapons. Let's say twenty per cent... that would make an enormous amount to place officers at schools round the clock.

He who wants to possess a gun should pay more money by purchasing it to finance the protection of the schools. So the financing problem would be solved.

[Passenger]

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.

I agree completely. Arming staff is only one part, but the children at school should at least have a chance in case of a rampage gunman and should be protected by qualified personnel. I have made a suggestion how to finance those personnel / guards at schools: imposing an added tax to weapons when a person is purchasing one. I suggested 20 percent, and I am sure this would make an enormous amount to finance qualified personnel at schools (and why not retired soldiers or marines...?).

[chris_brown207]

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.

I agree completely. Arming staff is only one part, but the children at school should at least have a chance in case of a rampage gunman and should be protected by qualified personnel. I have made a suggestion how to finance those personnel / guards at schools: imposing an added tax to weapons when a person is purchasing one. I suggested 20 percent, and I am sure this would make an enormous amount to finance qualified personnel at schools (and why not retired soldiers or marines...?).

I could live with these suggestions. I would also be interested to hear your recommendations on how to ensure that these armed guards do not have to fight off heavier armed attackers with assault weapons? Remember, the armed guard deterrent only works if the guards are as good or better armed then any would be assailant... as the North Hollywood Shootout and Columbine demonstrated.

[Passenger]

First I've read some German comments and news on this subject and then went to the English news. The nationwide debate seems to become more intensive, see this:

US gun lobby seeks to deport CNN host Piers Morgan

(...)
On Tuesday, Morgan held an especially contentious interview with executive director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt, appearing to become incensed and incredulous when Mr Pratt suggested more, not fewer, weapons as the solution.

"You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?" Morgan said at one point during the heated debate. "You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don't actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America."
(...)

Source: The Australian (online)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6542859077

[Passenger]

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.

I agree completely. Arming staff is only one part, but the children at school should at least have a chance in case of a rampage gunman and should be protected by qualified personnel. I have made a suggestion how to finance those personnel / guards at schools: imposing an added tax to weapons when a person is purchasing one. I suggested 20 percent, and I am sure this would make an enormous amount to finance qualified personnel at schools (and why not retired soldiers or marines...?).

I could live with these suggestions. I would also be interested to hear your recommendations on how to ensure that these armed guards do not have to fight off heavier armed attackers with assault weapons? Remember, the armed guard deterrent only works if the guards are as good or better armed then any would be assailant... as the North Hollywood Shootout and Columbine demonstrated.

Well, I think the first question should be how to win more time until the police appears. Even minutes could count and save lifes. Of course the weapons of those guards should have the same effect like the assault weapons used by the assailant. Why shouldn't guards be provided or equipped with the best weapons available to give an effective deterrent and ability to counterstrike?

The hypothetical and suggested tax on guns and rifles and any other weapons could be 20 to 50 percent to finance all the school guards as an institution at schools. I am not on the side of the NRA, and I even doubt that the second amendment of the US constitution really means that everyone should be allowed to own a gun. I think it was referred to armed militia and the right of the communes to array those militias ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."). I would never understand it as an individual right. The owner of a gun should be a member of a militia, and in former times nearly everyone (male, qualified) was a member of a militia. But not nowadays.

But on one point they (the NRA) are not absolutely wrong: as long as there still exist millions of guns and assault weapons in the hands of private persons allowed to purchase those guns without problems or restrictions there should be armed guards at schools.

[Angel]

First I've read some German comments and news on this subject and then went to the English news. The nationwide debate seems to become more intensive, see this:

US gun lobby seeks to deport CNN host Piers Morgan

(...)
On Tuesday, Morgan held an especially contentious interview with executive director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt, appearing to become incensed and incredulous when Mr Pratt suggested more, not fewer, weapons as the solution.

"You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?" Morgan said at one point during the heated debate. "You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don't actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America."
(...)

Source: The Australian (online)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6542859077

I remember seeing this debate on CNN just last week. Pierce Morgan got his butt handed to him and reduced his argument to name calling. I recommend for everyone here interested to watch the debate and decide for yourself...

And since there's so much misinformation and bias, even among , I also recommend for people to do their own research on this issue if you care about gun ownership and security. Otherwise, you're left in the hands of politicians and the mainstream media, and I find some of them very biased or ignorant on the matter of guns.

[Passenger]

First I've read some German comments and news on this subject and then went to the English news. The nationwide debate seems to become more intensive, see this:

US gun lobby seeks to deport CNN host Piers Morgan

(...)
On Tuesday, Morgan held an especially contentious interview with executive director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt, appearing to become incensed and incredulous when Mr Pratt suggested more, not fewer, weapons as the solution.

"You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?" Morgan said at one point during the heated debate. "You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don't actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America."
(...)

Source: The Australian (online)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6542859077

I remember seeing this debate on CNN just last week. Pierce Morgan got his butt handed to him and reduced his argument to name calling. I recommend for everyone here interested to watch the debate and decide for yourself...

And since there's so much misinformation and bias, even among , I also recommend for people to do their own research on this issue if you care about gun ownership and security. Otherwise, you're left in the hands of politicians and the mainstream media, and I find some of them very biased or ignorant on the matter of guns.

Thanks for the link. I've just watched it and I'm still under the impression of that interview. Well, even if I have only understood 80 - 90 percent, as my English is not so excellent, and I assure I'm going to watch it again, I would say that Piers Morgan argued in an offending way... ok, he might have been under the impression of the Newtown murderers, but he should have argued more moderately. Well, even if I think he is right to ban assault weapons out of the the hands of civilians he should better have argued more temperately and not in that outrageous way. (I think Larry King would have been more convincing instead of him.)

Here in Germany a debate like that and the host's affronts would certainly result in a judicial "aftermath" and the host would lose his job. But that's the United States, and actually I'm a friend of those kinds of confrontation or face-off.

[chris_brown207]

Well, I think the first question should be how to win more time until the police appears. Even minutes could count and save lifes. Of course the weapons of those guards should have the same effect like the assault weapons used by the assailant. Why shouldn't guards be provided or equipped with the best weapons available to give an effective deterrent and ability to counterstrike?

Agreed. I don't think I would be against having key staff to conceal carry in a school. They would need to be highly trained, and work regularly with emergency responders - so there is no Blue on Blue accidents when they respond. But yes, I could agree to that, being a former high school teacher, and knowing that there are good people who could handle that responsibility working at schools - not all, of course, but there are some.

The hypothetical and suggested tax on guns and rifles and any other weapons could be 20 to 50 percent to finance all the school guards as an institution at schools. I am not on the side of the NRA, and I even doubt that the second amendment of the US constitution really means that everyone should be allowed to own a gun. I think it was referred to armed militia and the right of the communes to array those militias ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."). I would never understand it as an individual right. The owner of a gun should be a member of a militia, and in former times nearly everyone (male, qualified) was a member of a militia. But not nowadays.

The NRA would point to Switzerland as a nation with a high rate of gun ownership(although still not as high as us), yet low murders. Perhaps we should use them as an example, as they fall more closely in line with your "militia" example. They are issued a weapon by the government (only after they have been trained by the government, which they have to repeat periodically), as well as ammunition. They are then required to keep it strictly under lock and key to be inspected regularly. Any tampering can bring legal repercussions.

But on one point they (the NRA) are not absolutely wrong: as long as there still exist millions of guns and assault weapons in the hands of private persons allowed to purchase those guns without problems or restrictions there should be armed guards at schools.

True, but as we saw with the Assault Rifle Ban in the 90s, the number of assault rifles and firearms as a whole did drop during this period. There wasn't any instantaneous effect (except for a mad rush to buy these before the law when into effect), but there was a long term decrease as a result of the legislation.

I do agree though, they are out there, and we have to continue to deal with them for the extended future, even after new legislation. (By the way, I do not support a ban, but rather placing these weapons in an NFA category along with machine guns, suppressors, etc.)

[Angel]

First I've read some German comments and news on this subject and then went to the English news. The nationwide debate seems to become more intensive, see this:

US gun lobby seeks to deport CNN host Piers Morgan

(...)
On Tuesday, Morgan held an especially contentious interview with executive director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt, appearing to become incensed and incredulous when Mr Pratt suggested more, not fewer, weapons as the solution.

"You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?" Morgan said at one point during the heated debate. "You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don't actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America."
(...)

Source: The Australian (online)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6542859077

I remember seeing this debate on CNN just last week. Pierce Morgan got his butt handed to him and reduced his argument to name calling. I recommend for everyone here interested to watch the debate and decide for yourself...

And since there's so much misinformation and bias, even among , I also recommend for people to do their own research on this issue if you care about gun ownership and security. Otherwise, you're left in the hands of politicians and the mainstream media, and I find some of them very biased or ignorant on the matter of guns.

Thanks for the link. I've just watched it and I'm still under the impression of that interview. Well, even if I have only understood 80 - 90 percent, as my English is not so excellent, and I assure I'm going to watch it again, I would say that Piers Morgan argued in an offending way... ok, he might have been under the impression of the Newtown murderers, but he should have argued more moderately. Well, even if I think he is right to ban assault weapons out of the the hands of civilians he should better have argued more temperately and not in that outrageous way. (I think Larry King would have been more convincing instead of him.)

Here in Germany a debate like that and the host's affronts would certainly result in a judicial "aftermath" and the host would lose his job. But that's the United States, and actually I'm a friend of those kinds of confrontation or face-off.

You're welcome. I made that post real late so I had a lot of typos and didn't make the link to where you could just click on it. I'll repost it so others can see it easily..

Gun control debate- Pierce Morgan vs. Larry Pratt.

Have a good Christmas everyone!