|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory.
I don't think its as easy as you are saying...
Although there was a period of pacifism shortly after Jesus' death in Christianity based on what he preached, this changed with time as certain verses were reinterpreted by the church and by emperors that the church was tied to.
The old testament was also clearly very violent and supported the use of war, and to some extent this extends to the new testament.
Show nested quote +Dr Ian Guthridge cited many instances of genocide in the Old Testament: the Bible also contains the horrific account of what can only be described as a "biblical holocaust". For, in order to keep the chosen people apart from and unaffected by the alien beliefs and practices of indigenous or neighbouring peoples, when God commanded his chosen people to conquer the Promised Land, he placed city after city 'under the ban" -which meant that every man, woman and child was to be slaughtered at the point of the sword. The extent of extermination is described in the scriptural passage Deut 20:16-18 which orders the Israelites to "not leave alive anything that breathes… completely destroy them …". thus leading many scholars to characterize the exterminations as genocide. Niels Peter Lemche asserts that European colonialism in the 19th century was ideologically based on the Old Testament narratives of conquest and extermination. Arthur Grenke claims that the view or war expressed in Deuteronomy contributed to the destruction of Native Americans and to the destruction of European Jewry.
I'm not sure if this is the most objective source, but I looked at "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" , and found that there are a lot of verses that seem to be in support of cruelty and violence within the New Testament, which you can view here: Link. Also from Wikipedia:
This apparent contradiction in the sacred scriptures between a "God of vengeance" and a "God of love" are the basis of a tension between the irenic and eristic tendencies of Christianity that has continued to the present day.
This approach is challenged by those who point out that there are also passages in the New Testament that tolerate, condone and even encourage the use of violence. John Hemer asserts that the two primary approaches that Christian teaching uses to deal with "the problem of violence in the Old Testament" are:
1. Concentrate more on the many passages where God is depicted as loving – much of Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Deuteronomy.
2. Explain how the idea of God as a violent punishing war monger is all part of the historical and cultural conditioning of the author and that we can ignore it in good faith, especially in the light of the New Testament.
Another endorsement for war:
Some theologians, however, reject the pacifist interpretation of Christian dogma. W.E. Addis et al. have written: "There have been sects, notably the Quakers, which have denied altogether the lawfulness of war, partly because they believe it to be prohibited by Christ (Mt. v. 39, etc), partly on humanitarian grounds. On the Scriptural ground they are easily refuted; the case of the soldiers instructed by in their duties by St. John the Baptist, and that of the military men whom Christ and His Apostles loved and familiarly conversed with (Lk 3:14, Acts 10, Mt 8:5), without a word to imply that their calling was unlawful, sufficiently prove the point."
In general its not unthinkable that as the religion continued to be intertwined with the state over the centuries, that scripture could have been reinterpreted to allow for war even if that wasn't what was originally intended. Saint Augustine is one of the most revered saints in Christianity, but his beliefs have formed the bedrock of Christian belief on what constitutes "a just war":
The concept of justification for war under certain conditions goes back at least to Cicero. However its importance is connected to Christian medieval theory beginning from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. According to Jared Diamond, Saint Augustine played a critical role in delineating Christian thinking about what constitutes a just war, and about how to reconcile Christian teachings of peace with the need for war in certain situations.
Sorry if this is kind of long, I wanted to get the most relevant quotes! (All sourcing on the Wikipedia page for Christianity and Violence)
|
I'm under the impression that the proposed assault weapon ban is more of a 'first step' on the road to removing guns rather than an effective crime reducing measure in itself. Anybody with half a brain realises that banning guns in the US would be a very gradual process and would have to proceed in stages. "Assault weapons" are pretty difficult to justify for civilian ownership, aren't as widely owned as handguns/rifles and represent an obvious first target for banning. Following this, the gun laws need to be consistent across states, the net can then be drawn in gradually and voila: gun free US (in 50 years or so...).
Of course, there's also the likely possibility that the proposed assault weapon ban is just a superficial gesture so that the politicians can be seen to be doing something without upsetting the gun lobbyists too much (who, rather ironically are tyrannically wielding their financial clout).
|
On December 22 2012 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote:
I have no problem with people owning guns, but after a debate with a coworker today, I just feel like typing it out here:
There is no need for a civilian population to own anything with any form of automatic or burst firing capabilities. For the extent of civilian purposes: "one trigger pull, one bullet" should be more than enough to: protect yourself/your loved ones/your property from unsavory aggressors, to hunt, to take part in recreational activities like shooting ranges, or any other reasonable use of a gun I can think of as a civilian. As far as compact clips etc, I would not put that on the same level as automated weaponry, but do not see a reasonable need for civilian personnel to be carrying these either.
Nobody in the US should be afraid of civilian-owned select-fire/automatic weapons, because there's just no real threat from them.
Select-fire weapons (weapons capable of shooting more than 1 bullet per trigger pull) are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and while legal to own in some states, require a 6-9 month background check by the ATF/FBI, a $200 application (known as a "tax stamp"), require special permission from the ATF if you ever travel across state lines with it, require the signature of your local chief law enforcement officer, requires entering yourself into the FBI fingerprint database, and by owning one, you consent to having any law enforcement officer search your home at any time without a warrant. Since any weapon made after 1986 is illegal to transfer to civilians, with no exceptions, the cost of these weapons is anywhere from $5000 to $50,000, depending on what it is.
It is illegal to give anyone access to an NFA weapon at any time if the owner isn't present, and the penalty is 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine, along with permanent revocation of the right to own firearms and confiscation of every firearm you possess.
There has only ever been one NFA weapon used to murder someone, and in that 1 case, it was a cop who was convicted of murdering someone in 1988 using a personally-owned automatic weapon. (which happened to be a MAC-11)
--gos
|
On December 22 2012 07:41 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:28 biology]major wrote:
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal. I don't think it's a waste. The area I went to school in rapides parish louisiana funded armed police in every school with a half cent sales tax that raises 12million a year. There hasn't been a shooting like ever.
That's not very convincing considering that most schools don't ever had shootings to begin with. To say having armed police are the reason why there's no shooting at schools that never had shootings before is equivalent to saying fire extinguishers prevent house fires like ever.
|
On December 22 2012 07:41 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:28 biology]major wrote:
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal. I don't think it's a waste. The area I went to school in rapides parish louisiana funded armed police in every school with a half cent sales tax that raises 12million a year. There hasn't been a shooting like ever.
most schools don't have shootings like ever, its always that one isolated incident where things go completely out of wack. Proposing to put cops in EVERY school for the .001% of schools that face shootings is just not cost effective, and it is a waste of a job for the police officer. Either you remove the availability of weapons to the public (which will neither solve the problem, or happen realistically) or you put in some sort of defense for the schools so they are not completely exposed territory. I argue cops are a waste of tax payer money to protect schools, and a more efficient form would be for the schools to protect themselves (with concealed carry). the high school I went to has 1-2 cops at the front entrance sitting outside doing nothing. Meanwhile some psycho can go in from the back and just go berserk and again, what can the cops do? These things have drastically different outcomes when you evaluate the situation by the SECOND.
Edit: I also believe assault rifles have no place in our society, because they play no role in public defense. Empowering concealed carry while removing assault rifles would truly be a society criminals would be terrified of.
|
On December 22 2012 07:31 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:28 biology]major wrote:
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal. There is something inherently wrong with loading school full of children with adults full of concealed weapons... If you don't see that, I don't even know where to begin.
That's not a logical argument. We also fill schools full of sharp objects and deadly machines like vehicles that could all be very dangerous to children.
On December 22 2012 07:31 Jermstuddog wrote:
Just thinking about my own high school experience, I personally saw students get in fist-fights with teachers at least 5-10 times.
How many of those would end up with somebody shot if the teacher was packing heat?
It's more likely those fights wouldn't happen in the first place if the students were aware their teachers might be packing heat. That said, if students and teachers are frequently having fistfights, there's a bigger problem at hand with school safety...
|
United States24667 Posts
On December 22 2012 07:45 Gospadin wrote:
Select-fire weapons (weapons capable of shooting more than 1 bullet per trigger pull) are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and while legal to own in some states, require a 6-9 month background check by the ATF/FBI, a $200 application (known as a "tax stamp"),
I just want to point out that the standard pistol permit in my county costs significantly more than that 'tax stamp' lol
|
Also, I'm curious to see how many anti-gun people here have actually went to gun training.
In gun training, I met a lot of people who were very anti-gun, until they got raped or robbed.
|
On December 22 2012 07:00 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote:
I have no problem with people owning guns, but after a debate with a coworker today, I just feel like typing it out here:
There is no need for a civilian population to own anything with any form of automatic or burst firing capabilities. For the extent of civilian purposes: "one trigger pull, one bullet" should be more than enough to: protect yourself/your loved ones/your property from unsavory aggressors, to hunt, to take part in recreational activities like shooting ranges, or any other reasonable use of a gun I can think of as a civilian. As far as compact clips etc, I would not put that on the same level as automated weaponry, but do not see a reasonable need for civilian personnel to be carrying these either.
I would consider myself a rather liberal person, but I understand the desire for people to own their own weapons, and don't see an inherent issue with it.
The only reason why I would consider automated weaponry/compact clips any different is because there is no functional use for those things outside of war. When defending your personal things, you want to fire one or a few shots to scare away the attackers. When hunting, you want to fire one or a few shots to take down your target animal. When at a shooting range, you are usually judging marksmanship, not bullets-per-minute. Any weapon modification that causes multiple shots per trigger pull or extended shooting without reloading would be exclusively useful in assaulting hostile targets in an aggressive fashion with the goal of killing the target and/or suppressing return fire.
I'd like it much more if our politicians could be debating over things like this, instead of this retarded "guns" vs "no guns" conversation we get to hear about.
/rant Only, the spirit of the 2nd amendment seems to be that civilians should be able to stand up to an oppressive military regime more than protect trinkets like property or simply practice their aim. How can they do that without some heavy artillery?
Ask the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
On December 22 2012 07:54 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:31 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 22 2012 07:28 biology]major wrote:
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal. There is something inherently wrong with loading school full of children with adults full of concealed weapons... If you don't see that, I don't even know where to begin. That's not a logical argument. We also fill schools full of sharp objects and deadly machines like vehicles that could all be very dangerous to children. Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:31 Jermstuddog wrote:
Just thinking about my own high school experience, I personally saw students get in fist-fights with teachers at least 5-10 times.
How many of those would end up with somebody shot if the teacher was packing heat? It's more likely those fights wouldn't happen in the first place if the students were aware their teachers might be packing heat. That said, if students and teachers are frequently having fistfights, there's a bigger problem at hand with school safety...
Students getting in fist fights with teachers holy shit. Where did you go to school. The class I graduated with honestly only had 1 or 2 fights the entire time I was there and both were in a gym class.
Cop's in schools are hardly a waste... We have a liaison officer at lots of schools in my school district. I graduated 2 years ago and at that time he dealt with people having drugs at school/fights/lectured about drinking and driving to the year that would be getting licenses/talked about cyber safety/talked about effects of drug use and other generic cop stuff.
They don't need to be like the Sentry Bots patrolling buildings in Fallout 3/NV+ Show Spoiler +http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Sentry_bot_(Fallout:_New_Vegas)
|
So NRA loving conservatives want the government to protect the kids and teachers from themselves? Want to add some police state feel to the classroom?
You're going to pay higher taxes to hire those security guards aren't you? You're willing to be hypocrites as long as you can keep your precious firearms.
Pro-gun advocates say that the gun didn't kill those kids. However, if you make something harder for people to do, they'll be less likely to do it. It is hard to learn how to make a bomb, buy ingredients, and carry it out. All this Lanza kid had to do was get one of his mother's six firearms.
|
On December 22 2012 07:58 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:00 dUTtrOACh wrote:On December 22 2012 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote:
I have no problem with people owning guns, but after a debate with a coworker today, I just feel like typing it out here:
There is no need for a civilian population to own anything with any form of automatic or burst firing capabilities. For the extent of civilian purposes: "one trigger pull, one bullet" should be more than enough to: protect yourself/your loved ones/your property from unsavory aggressors, to hunt, to take part in recreational activities like shooting ranges, or any other reasonable use of a gun I can think of as a civilian. As far as compact clips etc, I would not put that on the same level as automated weaponry, but do not see a reasonable need for civilian personnel to be carrying these either.
I would consider myself a rather liberal person, but I understand the desire for people to own their own weapons, and don't see an inherent issue with it.
The only reason why I would consider automated weaponry/compact clips any different is because there is no functional use for those things outside of war. When defending your personal things, you want to fire one or a few shots to scare away the attackers. When hunting, you want to fire one or a few shots to take down your target animal. When at a shooting range, you are usually judging marksmanship, not bullets-per-minute. Any weapon modification that causes multiple shots per trigger pull or extended shooting without reloading would be exclusively useful in assaulting hostile targets in an aggressive fashion with the goal of killing the target and/or suppressing return fire.
I'd like it much more if our politicians could be debating over things like this, instead of this retarded "guns" vs "no guns" conversation we get to hear about.
/rant Only, the spirit of the 2nd amendment seems to be that civilians should be able to stand up to an oppressive military regime more than protect trinkets like property or simply practice their aim. How can they do that without some heavy artillery? Ask the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well actually don't ask the ones in Iraq. Things didn't fare well for them
|
What would it say about the state of your country when you have to have armed security/police at every single school.
|
On December 22 2012 08:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
What would it say about the state of your country when you have to have armed security/police at every single school.
Safe? =)
Hm, honestly, it could reduce shootings at schools. But I don't see how it reduces overall shootings. Schools are hardly the only place with masses of people. Don't know what people want to achieve.
|
On December 22 2012 08:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
What would it say about the state of your country when you have to have armed security/police at every single school.
Well it is very preferable to arming teachers.
Also, if we are honest, a ban on 'assault weapons' alone is not going to help. If it were a stepping stone to a more inclusive ban (on all handguns, for example) then it would reduce gun crime, but there is plenty of evidence that banning semi-automatics does not reduce gun crime if handguns are still available.
Therefore, having armed security at schools if far from the worst option. You could say that no action should be taken at all, but then there will be more mass shootings.
|
On December 22 2012 08:11 julianto wrote:
So NRA loving conservatives want the government to protect the kids and teachers from themselves? Want to add some police state feel to the classroom?
You're going to pay higher taxes to hire those security guards aren't you? You're willing to be hypocrites as long as you can keep your precious firearms.
Pro-gun advocates say that the gun didn't kill those kids. However, if you make something harder for people to do, they'll be less likely to do it. It is hard to learn how to make a bomb, buy ingredients, and carry it out. All this Lanza kid had to do was get one of his mother's six firearms.
Conservatives have always been hypocrites when it has come to security/military issues.
|
On December 22 2012 08:29 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 08:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
What would it say about the state of your country when you have to have armed security/police at every single school. Well it is very preferable to arming teachers. Also, if we are honest, a ban on 'assault weapons' alone is not going to help. If it were a stepping stone to a more inclusive ban (on all handguns, for example) then it would reduce gun crime, but there is plenty of evidence that banning semi-automatics does not reduce gun crime if handguns are still available. Therefore, having armed security at schools if far from the worst option. You could say that no action should be taken at all, but then there will be more mass shootings.
Would armed police even really deter mass shootings? They might cut them short, but most of these shooters plan on dying anyway, and even in a small school with Usain Bolt as a cop one could get off quite a few shots before he could stop you.
|
On December 22 2012 08:38 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 08:29 hzflank wrote:On December 22 2012 08:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
What would it say about the state of your country when you have to have armed security/police at every single school. Well it is very preferable to arming teachers. Also, if we are honest, a ban on 'assault weapons' alone is not going to help. If it were a stepping stone to a more inclusive ban (on all handguns, for example) then it would reduce gun crime, but there is plenty of evidence that banning semi-automatics does not reduce gun crime if handguns are still available. Therefore, having armed security at schools if far from the worst option. You could say that no action should be taken at all, but then there will be more mass shootings. Would armed police even really deter mass shootings? They might cut them short, but most of these shooters plan on dying anyway, and even in a small school with Usain Bolt as a cop one could get off quite a few shots before he could stop you.
I think this is an important distinction, in addition to considering what sort of "guards" we are realistically talking. I mean, when fans talk about placing guards in schools, you know they are imagining a highly proficient, experienced dude who is going to identify the thread expediently and eliminate it. In reality, this guy will likely be a regular contract security employee or police officer with relatively little high danger experience, and the shooter will simply add "Take out guard" to the beginning of his checklist.
|
On December 22 2012 08:38 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 08:29 hzflank wrote:On December 22 2012 08:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
What would it say about the state of your country when you have to have armed security/police at every single school. Well it is very preferable to arming teachers. Also, if we are honest, a ban on 'assault weapons' alone is not going to help. If it were a stepping stone to a more inclusive ban (on all handguns, for example) then it would reduce gun crime, but there is plenty of evidence that banning semi-automatics does not reduce gun crime if handguns are still available. Therefore, having armed security at schools if far from the worst option. You could say that no action should be taken at all, but then there will be more mass shootings. Would armed police even really deter mass shootings? They might cut them short, but most of these shooters plan on dying anyway, and even in a small school with Usain Bolt as a cop one could get off quite a few shots before he could stop you.
Agreed. Schools are no the only targets, either. We have recently seen shootings in malls and cinemas, and I today I briefly read a story of some cops being shot dead. Judging by what I have read here and elsewhere, America is not ready for full gun control though, so I am trying to give other ideas a chance.
|
The upcoming AWB will do nothing to curb the violence they intended the law to stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
