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]

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!

No problem. Thanks again for the link.

Yes, and a merry and reflective Christmas to everyone.

[A Troubled Man]

Yes, the Los Angeles Riots during the 90s where a lot of Korean businesses were targeted by angry mobs and gangs.

Also, the civil disobedience after Hurrican Katrina in New Orleans. Thugs were loose on the street stealing out of stores, trying to break into police stations, some police even abandoned their post, etc.

I think a shotgun (or even a handgun) is sufficient to deter situations like this. One doesn't necessarily need a AK-47 to keep away looters.

Not necessarily. If a group of "thugs" were going to loot your business or home, it is unlikely a handgun or shotgun will scare them off, especially if they are wielding guns themselves. However, fire a few rounds from an AK-47 into the air in front of them and they'll scatter like roaches.

[chris_brown207]

Not necessarily. If a group of "thugs" were going to loot your business or home, it is unlikely a handgun or shotgun will scare them off, especially if they are wielding guns themselves. However, fire a few rounds from an AK-47 into the air in front of them and they'll scatter like roaches.

This is probably true in theory - but seeing as how we have had only two significant instances in the last 7,300 days to test that theory, it would almost seem to be of statistical insignificance - especially when compared to what we have seen in the 4 instances within the last 180 days in which similar weapons made it into the hands of citizens with murderous intent.

[Angel]

Not necessarily. If a group of "thugs" were going to loot your business or home, it is unlikely a handgun or shotgun will scare them off, especially if they are wielding guns themselves. However, fire a few rounds from an AK-47 into the air in front of them and they'll scatter like roaches.

This is probably true in theory - but seeing as how we have had only two significant instances in the last 7,300 days to test that theory, it would almost seem to be of statistical insignificance - especially when compared to what we have seen in the 4 instances within the last 180 days in which similar weapons made it into the hands of citizens with murderous intent.

Well I wouldn't say that there's only been two scenarios where assault rifles would've been useful. Those two cases I referred to, LA riots and Hurricane Katrina looters, were just cases I remembered off the top of my head so that's not to say that there aren't more examples or that there will never be in the future. And if you also go by Otseng's logic, then just as long as the assault rifles can be used as sport then they are useful. If you take away Otseng's classification of usefulness involving sport shooting then his point is invalid, since for actual self defense, hand guns are used more in murders and even mass murders than for self-defense. Recent shootings involving hand guns- the Arizona shooting (Gabriel Gifford shot in the head), Fort Hood shooting, Virgina Tech shooting - all involved hand guns.

[chris_brown207]

Well I wouldn't say that there's only been two scenarios where assault rifles would've been useful. Those two cases I referred to, LA riots and Hurricane Katrina looters, were just cases I remembered off the top of my head so that's not to say that there aren't more examples or that there will never be in the future. And if you also go by Otseng's logic, then just as long as the assault rifles can be used as sport then they are useful. If you take away Otseng's classification of usefulness involving sport shooting then his point is invalid, since for actual self defense, hand guns are used more in murders and even mass murders than for self-defense. Recent shootings involving hand guns- the Arizona shooting (Gabriel Gifford shot in the head), Fort Hood shooting, Virgina Tech shooting - all involved hand guns.

I would agree with you. Of all the GDU case studies I have seen, not one of them provided a clear cut instance in which an Assault Rifle was the only tool that would suffice. However, in the instances of these mass shooters - especially Aurora Theater in which he not only had an Assault Rifle, but body armor - you are almost presented with situations in which an Assault Rifle would be necessary to effectively counter the situation (the North Hollywood Shootout and Columbine being classic examples). These would lead me to believe that the best common ground is one in which our 2nd Amendment Right, as interpreted by SCOTUS, is still maintained but that we are focusing our efforts on types of weapons and accessories that would place limitations on the damage potential and time frames of future mass shooters.

[otseng]

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

What types of guns?

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.

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

Yes, it's one reason.

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.

[otseng]

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.

That might not be a bad idea.

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?

As I understand it, not even the local police are heavily armed. They would also have to call in special units if they need more gunpower.

If the mass killers don't have access to assault weapons, it then wouldn't be as much of a problem.

[otseng]

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?

[otseng]

And if you also go by Otseng's logic, then just as long as the assault rifles can be used as sport then they are useful.

To be clear, I have never stated this.

Recent shootings involving hand guns- the Arizona shooting (Gabriel Gifford shot in the head), Fort Hood shooting, Virgina Tech shooting - all involved hand guns.

I believe all mass shootings have involved handguns.

[otseng]

Of all the GDU case studies I have seen, not one of them provided a clear cut instance in which an Assault Rifle was the only tool that would suffice.

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.