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?

[Armed Citizen]

Two: Of course Assault Weapons would be more useful against numbers of people. This is why they are favored by police, military.... and mass shooters. The problem is that by making them so available to the public, we have also made them available to people who are teetering on the edge, or have crossed over the likelihood of committing an act like this. The devastation that can be caused in such a short time by these weapons has been proven 3 times in the past 6 months...

Cann I be gettin' citation of this here asertion please? Specifically that there bold part I highlighted. I sure would be appreciatin it.

Thanks




:2gun:

[Passenger]

Two: Of course Assault Weapons would be more useful against numbers of people. This is why they are favored by police, military.... and mass shooters. The problem is that by making them so available to the public, we have also made them available to people who are teetering on the edge, or have crossed over the likelihood of committing an act like this. The devastation that can be caused in such a short time by these weapons has been proven 3 times in the past 6 months...

Cann I be gettin' citation of this here asertion please? I sure would be appreciatin it.

Thanks

:2gun:

There have been so many gun shootings at schools in the US by using those kinds of assault weapons mentioned here so that more restrictive edicts concerning weapons law should be achieved by the US authorities. Twenty children had to die because one little rascal obviously mentally disordered could easily seize two pistols and one assault rifle.

The guns seemingly were not even locked. People, like his mother, who act irresponsibly by handling with guns in a way that her son can take possession of all her guns without her knowledge and without giving a warning or reporting it immediately to the police or the sheriff, should not be allowed to own guns or even assault weapons.

Purchasing a gun in the US should finally be more restricted by the authorities or even restricted under a new act. In the US the gun lobby seems to be very dominant, like here in Germany the car lobby, and thousands get injured or die on the autobahn (expressways) by driving without speed limit or ignoring the danger of high speed and lose control of their car.

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
- George Washington

Yes, if they (firearms) were only handled under this aspect, he (Washington) might be right. But he certainly didn't know about or didn't have any idea of those terrible murders in the twenty-first century. I am quite sure he would revise his statement seeing all those awful incidents.

[chris_brown207]

Two: Of course Assault Weapons would be more useful against numbers of people. This is why they are favored by police, military.... and mass shooters. The problem is that by making them so available to the public, we have also made them available to people who are teetering on the edge, or have crossed over the likelihood of committing an act like this. The devastation that can be caused in such a short time by these weapons has been proven 3 times in the past 6 months...

Cann I be gettin' citation of this here asertion please? Specifically that there bold part I highlighted. I sure would be appreciatin it.

Thanks




:2gun:

No problem.

Assault Weapons preferred by military: I am a former member of Naval Special Operations. The standard weapon of issue for ground troops is the M-4, a semi-auto and automatic weapon of the rifle caliber 5.56mm. Some other weapons commonly carried by ground troops are the SAW - 5.56mm belt fed machine gun, the M240 - a 7.62mm belt fed machine gun, the Mk42 - a shortened and lightened version of the M-60 machine gun. The only field component not armed with semi-auto at the least weapons are snipers - and many of them are switching over to semi-auto sniper rifles. Weapons prefferred by the military are mostly automatic and semi-auto with high magazine capacities because of their ability to sustain a high rate of fire on target with minimal breaks in between.

Assault Weapons favored by police: While there is no national standard for police, many of the officers that I have worked with had an M-4 in their police vehicles. Here is a list of weapons used by some SWAT operators.

Assault Weapons favored by Mass Shooters just within the last six months:
- Aurora Theater - used an AR-15 (very similar to an M-4) style rifle as his primary weapon
- The Oregon Mall Shooter - He used same type of rifle. The only reason he didn't have a higher body count was his rifle jammed (this was a stolen rifle, and the only of the recent mass shooters who used an illegally owned rifle).
- Sandy Hook Shooter - used the exact same style rifle as the previous two.

While I am not for a ban of weapons, I do think there is something to be said for the fact that none of these shooters used "black market" machine guns, or any other type of NFA weapon. Matter of fact, I couldn't find a recent attack in which an NFA weapon was used. All the weapons used were commong "Over The Counter" type weapons. This would seem to indicate that an effective measure for public safety would be to include certain "assault rifles" in the NFA category, and reserve them for only serious citizens willing to go through the process of attaining an FFL, and a Class 3 SOT.

[Angel]

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.

Forgive me for intruding again. I wanted to make 2 points. One: the two examples you yourself have provided over a decade apart. While these mass shootings have happened every year.

Well the two examples I offered are only what I knew off of the top of my head but that's not to say there aren't other instances or that cases involving a violent mob, gangs, etc would only occur only every 10 years. And the point still remains that assault rifles can be useful to the public, even if they're rarely needed.

To deal with a threat involving mass numbers, which weapon would be suitable, a hand gun or an assault rifle? Why do even cops have assault rifles?

Two: Of course Assault Weapons would be more useful against numbers of people. This is why they are favored by police, military.... and mass shooters. The problem is that by making them so available to the public, we have also made them available to people who are teetering on the edge, or have crossed over the likelihood of committing an act like this. The devastation that can be caused in such a short time by these weapons has been proven 3 times in the past 6 months...

I believe elsewhere I've read that you're not in favor of banning assault weapons so we're both on the same page in that respect. And my reason for not wanting these weapons banned is because there are places, like Switzerland, where gun ownership doesn't lead to high gun crimes. I'd even argue that people (one person or a gang or a mob) would be more reluctant to commit any type of violent crimes when they know they are in an area where people have all types of firearms which is why we hear little to nothing about mass murders occurring at shooting ranges, at military bases, at police stations, etc.

So if the assault rifles themselves are not the problem, then not only are you not really fixing the problem, but these people will find other ways to commit their crimes. If people are really interested in fixing the problem of mass murderers then they would be working on requiring mental evaluations since all of the mass shootings that the news have been focusing on were done by people who had social/mental problems. It's obvious that we also need more armed security at our schools so we can stop a suspect carrying, who is carrying any type of weapon, from entering our schools. One of the cheapest forms of security would be training law-abiding citizens to use guns because we can be in more places, like malls, stores, etc, and we aren't paid to carry our firearms.

[chris_brown207]

Well the two examples I offered are only what I knew off of the top of my head but that's not to say there aren't other instances or that cases involving a violent mob, gangs, etc would only occur only every 10 years. And the point still remains that assault rifles can be useful to the public, even if they're rarely needed.

I agree with their potential for them to be useful in certain rare instance. However, it kind of harkens back to my example of the vaccine being in some instances worse then the illness. Or deadly side effects being more common then the deadly illness itself.

I believe elsewhere I've read that you're not in favor of banning assault weapons so we're both on the same page in that respect. And my reason for not wanting these weapons banned is because there are places, like Switzerland, where gun ownership doesn't lead to high gun crimes. I'd even argue that people would be more reluctant to commit any type of violent crimes when they know they are in an area where people have all types of firearms which is why you'll hear little to nothing about mass murders occurring at shooting ranges, at military bases, at police stations, etc.

There is probably some truth to that... the so called "bully" effect in which one is more likely to be the victim of bullying if one is perceived to be weak or an easy target. However, we have probably passed the point of decreasing returns. When we see people with obvious (now) mental issues able to easily get hold of "assault weapons" and create the kind of carnage that they did, then I would say the process is getting to the point of being counter-productive. And the bully effect works both ways, a bully with a stick is probably more bold then a bully without. And seeing as how the efficacy and ease of arming citizens with Assault Weapons and body armor is debatable, it may be more effective to regulate the sale of assault weapons.

Besides, even if there were armed teachers on the premise - unless they were similarly armed, the chances of success for them would greatly decrease. We have seen that in case studies such as the North Hollywood Shootout, in which police with handguns faired very poorly against assailants with assault weapons and body armor (just like the Aurora Shooter).

So if the assault rifles themselves are not the problem, then not only are you not really fixing the problem, but these people will find other ways to commit their crimes. If people are really interested in fixing the problem of mass murders then they'd be working on requiring mental evaluations since ALL of these latest shooters occurred by people who are reported to have social/mental problems. It's obvious that we also need more armed security at our schools so we can stop a suspect carrying, who is carrying any type of weapon, from entering our schools. One of the cheapest forms of security would be training law-abiding citizens to use guns because we can be in more places, like malls, stores, etc, and we aren't paid to carry our firearms.

I am not in favor of banning anything, whether it be guns, drugs, liquor - because I believe all it does is incentivize the "black market".

And I don't think the assault rifles are the problem either - I think the ease with which these people got hold of assault rifles was the problem. The fact that we haven't seen full auto machine guns, suppressors, or other NFA weapons being used in mass shootings (despite the fact that they are preferred by our military combatants due to their increased combat effectiveness) would lead me to believe that this is an effective deterrent - while still not banning these weapons. By adding assault weapons to the NFA list, they would still be available to citizens - but only those serious citizens willing to attain an FFL and a Class 3 SOT (thus why you are able to see machine guns, silencers and such on shows like Sun of a Gun). And if history holds true, we will be much less likely see those type weapons used in mass shootings. I agree with you that criminals will find other ways to commit crime - and I think that is a good thing. We have seen the body count differ greatly (by almost a factor of ten) when a recent school attacker was armed with say a bow and arrow...

I spoke a little bit about the process for getting an SOT in another thread. I would be happy to explain again, and also talk about the process of getting an FFL.

[otseng]

THis point of yours does not invalidate my point regarding assault rifles being useful for protection against threats involving mass numbers of people.

I'm not stating that it would not be useful for that. I'm saying that having a shotgun or a handgun is also effective, if not more so.

If I was a store owner, I don't think an AK-47 would be as useful as a handgun. If a robber came in and wanted to rob the store, it'd be better to reach for a handgun (either in a holster or in some other convenient location) than for an assault rifle. More than likely it's not going to be at some location that can be readily accessible. And saying "Uh, hold on, let me go to the back room while I get my AK-47." is probably not going to work.

The only time I see an assault rifle that can be remotely used is when the robbers are outside the store and you're standing at the entrance. And that scenario would be quite remote.

Now I'm not saying that a shotgun would be completely uneffective, but when you have to stop and reload after 12 shots, and you have more than 12 violent rioters who may have their own weapons, then you may be as good as dead.

If there are 12 violent rioters each with a gun, it doesn't matter what you have, you are probably not going to win the gun fight. It's better to just let them take whatever they want.

Either way, my intentions was not to show that assault rifles were the only way to handle numerous threats at one time, but rather that it's simply one way and perhaps the best way which makes it useful.

I'm not saying it's not efficient in killing a lot of people quickly. As a matter of fact, I do believe it's efficient in killing a lot of people quickly. But, it's more likely to be used to murder a lot of people quickly rather than to legally defend oneself against an onslought of intruders.

If you asked me five years ago about banning assault weapons, I'd be against it. But, unfortunately, we are seeing mass murder with guns too often now. And, if assault weapons are not controlled more, I am quite certain that we will see its use more in mass killings.

You're making it sound as if there's no reasonable use for it at all, as if, all it can be used for is for shooting a deer or two and that's not the case.

I don't know of anyone who hunts with an assault rifle.

In that scenario, it would be best to have a weapon where you not only have to reload as much but also a gun where you can take out mass numbers of people.

This scenario is so remote that most people will never encounter this situation.

This is your speculation. You can't guarantee to anyone that there will never again be civil unrest and riots in this country.

As I mentioned, it's not absolutely necessary to have an assault weapon during riots. Plus, riots generally do not involve the mob using guns.

This is an inductive fallacy unless you have evidence that compares the legal self-defense use of assualt rifles compared to its use for mass murdering. Do you have actual data to support your claim here or are you simply riding the tide of the mainstream media and their emphasis on mass shootings compared to other types of shootings?

I'm not saying that assault rifles cannot be used for self-defense. But, I am saying that assault rifles are generally not used for hunting, competition shooting, and even shooting at the shooting range. Thus, there are far more legal usage of handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles than assault rifles.

I also question what banning assault rifles will do when people can also commit mass murder with other weapons.

Banning assault weapons is not the golden bullet. It will not completely stop gun violence. It will require a multi-prong approach. But, hopefully it would reduce the number of fatalities.

Is the real problem the assault rifles or is it with the LACK of background checks and periodic mental evavluations?

Well, the REAL problem is the sinful nature of man.

Your statement only translates into assault rifles being rarely needed for self-defense against numerous threats.

I think an assault rifle is overkill for defense purposes. If you heard an intruder in your home, would you reach first for a M16 or a Glock 17?

That's basically implying that assault rifles contribute to gun crime more than hand guns.

I'm not saying that either.

They would not be used as much "legally" or would they not use it at all? When you don't include that latter alternative you're committing engaging in a false dilemma fallacy.

I've never encountered anyone who hunts with assault rifles. Sure, there could be some people that do, but they would be a small minority.

[otseng]

And my reason for not wanting these weapons banned is because there are places, like Switzerland, where gun ownership doesn't lead to high gun crimes.

You don't want the US to be like Switzerland. Ammo is highly controlled. The only ammo that can be found inside a home is a sealed box that is regularly inspected (though I'm not sure if they even are allowed sealed box ammos any more).

So, Switzerland cannot be compared to the US.

[otseng]

And I don't think the assault rifles are the problem either - I think the ease with which these people got hold of assault rifles was the problem. The fact that we haven't seen full auto machine guns, suppressors, or other NFA weapons being used in mass shootings (despite the fact that they are preferred by our military combatants due to their increased combat effectiveness) would lead me to believe that this is an effective deterrent - while still not banning these weapons.

If a ban is not achievable, I'd be in favor of stricter regulations of assault weapons.

[Angel]

I believe elsewhere I've read that you're not in favor of banning assault weapons so we're both on the same page in that respect. And my reason for not wanting these weapons banned is because there are places, like Switzerland, where gun ownership doesn't lead to high gun crimes. I'd even argue that people would be more reluctant to commit any type of violent crimes when they know they are in an area where people have all types of firearms which is why you'll hear little to nothing about mass murders occurring at shooting ranges, at military bases, at police stations, etc.

There is probably some truth to that... the so called "bully" effect in which one is more likely to be the victim of bullying if one is perceived to be weak or an easy target. However, we have probably passed the point of decreasing returns. When we see people with obvious (now) mental issues able to easily get hold of "assault weapons" and create the kind of carnage that they did, then I would say the process is getting to the point of being counter-productive. And the bully effect works both ways, a bully with a stick is probably more bold then a bully without. And seeing as how the efficacy and ease of arming citizens with Assault Weapons and body armor is debatable, it may be more effective to regulate the sale of assault weapons.

Besides, even if there were armed teachers on the premise - unless they were similarly armed, the chances of success for them would greatly decrease. We have seen that in case studies such as the North Hollywood Shootout, in which police with handguns faired very poorly against assailants with assault weapons and body armor (just like the Aurora Shooter).
...

I don't agree with some of your reasoning 100% on some of your other points, but I mainly wanted to respond to the part where you talked about teachers having guns. I do believe that teachers who are trained to use firearms should be able to carry it to school just as any security officer on the property would be armed.

You pointed out 2 cases where the mass gunmen wore body armor and carried assault rifles, but that does not mean that every person entering a school with the intent to do harm will wear and carry the same arms. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, who killed 13 people and wonded dozens did not have body armor nor did Seung-Hui Cho, the Virigina Tech shooter. In the latter case, if someone had a gun, that person(s) could've easily taken him out before he would've been able to murder 32 and injure dozens of DEFENSELESS people.

[chris_brown207]

I don't agree with some of your reasoning 100% on some of your other points, but I mainly wanted to respond to the part where you talked about teachers having guns. I do believe that teachers who are trained to use firearms should be able to carry it to school just as any security officer on the property would be armed.

You pointed out 2 cases where the mass gunmen wore body armor and carried assault rifles, but that does not mean that every person entering a school with the intent to do harm will wear and carry the same arms. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, who killed 13 people and wonded dozens did not have body armor nor did Seung-Hui Cho, the Virigina Tech shooter. In the latter case, if someone had a gun, that person(s) could've easily taken him out before he would've been able to murder 32 and injure dozens of DEFENSELESS people.

I think I could support having some key members of a school system armed with a CCL weapon. These individuals would need to be very familiar and train regularly with local responders to ensure no Blue on Blue accidents takes place, but yes I think I could support this.

In my opinion such legislation would also need to be bundled with legislation that would place Assault Rifles in an NFA category, and then new legislation to diagnose and treat the mentally unstable as well as regulations for what, how and where weapons will be in places that house these individuals.

What do you all think?