This is the one dealing with the 2.5 million estimate. I'll admit I'd be surprised if the number really was that high: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
As for the bolded part, that's assuming that in every use the weapon was actually fired, which isn't always the case. There are instances where just showing that they were armed was enough to scare off an attacker.
First of all, I only needed to name one to show the flaw of your argument. I did, and you just dismissed it. You were speaking in absolutes and Switzerland proves that the issue is not black and white.
What flaw in my argument? I only asked to show one country that had it worse and by digging at straws you finally digged one up. Meanwhile as I keep saying dozens of countries are still safer with less guns.
A great example is Norway. Here's what's fascinating about their culture; While they do have a strong hunting culture, if you apply for a license and write "self-defense" as the reason, it will get denied. And concealed carry is forbidden. That's not what guns are for in Norway. On top of that, the police prefers to remain unarmed. You tell me, why hasn't a gang of criminals armed themselves with the infinite gun stash and rained death on this country yet?
But then, Norway was faced with tragedy when Anders Breivik opened fire in that summer camp. That should be exhibit A for less gun control right? Not so. While there were complaints that the police took too long to intervene and that Anders' sentence is too lenient, the norwegians didn't flock to their leaders demanding to be able to carry guns.
What does any of that have to do with whether or not Americans should be allowed to own guns? Just because we don't have a militia system like the Swiss do we shouldn't be able to own guns at all? This is irrelevant.
I just find it fascinating that the Swiss are living the second amendment better than Americans ever have.
As I said, France, Sweden and Norway, the countries you gave as examples, all have more guns per capita, but less homicides per capita than the UK.
Yeah, less people in the UK are getting shot, but overall more of them are still being murdered than in any of the other three countries.
I'm looking at the numbers and I see "In the United Kingdom, annual deaths resulting from firearms total
2009: 13811"
"In the United Kingdom, annual homicides by any means total
2009: 724"
In other words, a minority of homicide are caused by guns.
Protip for arguing on the internet : Don't just post links, post the revelant tidbits of information. I"m certainly not going to do your research for you. I've looked at Gunpolicy and did not find the information you claimed in your argument.
Point being - and I don't understand why I have to keep repeating this - more guns does not necessarily equate to more violence, and less guns doesn't automatically mean you're safer. You continue to ignore this fact.
You've haven't proved much so far. And you keep ignoring how so many countries are safer with less guns.
Mexico is more or less ruled by drug cartels. They are the source or most of the violence over there. If an organised crime gang takes over the US to the point that the police is helpless against them then by all means form a militia and defend your state.
While it's not infinite, yes, there would be millions of guns ready to be smuggled back in the states. You're talking about complete and absolute disarmament, so for all intents and purposes the supply might as well be infinite.
And that just doesn't make sense. You can't seriously claim that every single criminal will instantly find a new gun.
It's just delusional to think you'd find every single one of their guns. It's also incredibly naive to think that you could find and confiscate every single gun out there, and on top of that keep any new ones from entering the country.
Agreed, which is why I never claimed that. No country is completely unarmed. Gun Control is not Gun Ban. I"m afraid you're also arguing with absolutes. I've never said all guns should be eliminated, only that lower gun possession is necessary
And you don't know that the end result would be better.
I do because I've mentionned time and again all these countries doing great with less guns. We know it can work, we know it's possible.
A shift in culture would be necessary, but I think this is where our debate's gonna stall, because I just don't see us agreeing on anything here.
Could a culture shift happen? I suppose it could, as unlikely as it is. You'd have to get a lot of people to advocate against guns, and as things stand now, most Americans either support the 2nd Amendment, or at the very least disagree with doing away with a constitutionally protected right. From all the polls I've seen, only a very small minority of Americans would support an outright gun ban. The gun culture is rooted so deeply in this country that I just don't see it changing. To me that's like saying Europeans should stop drinking beer.
Which is why a culture shift is necessary first. I am also aware that the current generation would never agree to let go of their guns. And again it would take many years. But as the time go by the young generation might not be surrounded by so many guns and in turn the following generation may not even have to deal with guns.
I still think it couldn't hurt to try going to a shooting range if you've never done it. Not saying it would change your mind, but it doesn't hurt to see for yourself what it's like to hold and shoot a gun to add some perspective.
I've done paintball shooting (those things can sting!). Otherwise I have never felt the need or desire to shoot a real gun.
Again, you haven't denied it. It's not a strawman, I'm just trying to set a baseline for who I'm talking to here. I only bring it up because I've never met someone who had personal experience with firearms and was still so vehemently against them.
Then ask, don't assume. While I certainly don't spend my week-ends at the gun range, I have looked up the numbers, which is all that's needed for this discussion.
I've seen a bunch of different studies done on annual defensive gun uses in the US that have been done over the past nine years or so by colleges, private research institutions and governmental agencies (Lott, Kleck, NCVS, Department of Justice are some of them). The one problem is they have quite a range. As Naga pointed out it's harder to collect data on something that doesn't always get reported or leave a body behind. Some of them came to the conclusion that people use guns to defend themselves in the US 2.5 million times a year (some estimates are even higher), whereas on the low end they figured more like 100,000.
Let's go with the low end, 100,000. Actually, let's cut that in half to 50,000.
Ok, I want the cite of the hypothetical 2.5 million saved lives. Or you could give me the 100,000. But I'd really love to see the study supporting 2,5 millions. According to the latest figures, there's 350,000,000 firearms in america. That suggests that every year, one in 140 people is threatened and then saved by a gun. That's nearly 7 thousands a day. You'd have to have crazy constant shootouts to get to that figure.
Switzerland. They have plenty of guns in Switzerland, one of the highest ownership rates per capita in the world, and yet they have one of the lowest homicide rates, gun related or otherwise, of any country in the world. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland
Oh good. You named one. Meanwhile I already named you three countries that are safer and can name so many more.
Also, the thing with Switzerland is that they take a completely different approach to firearm ownership. I would highly suggest this non-partisan article that tries to see how americans can relate to the swiss http://guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
Basically it talks about how the Swiss sees gun ownership as part of their military duty, they take the whole "militia" thing very seriously,
"The same point might be made about guns. Although guns are more available to the Swiss, Swiss gun culture is more authoritarian than America's. Gun ownership is a mandatory community duty, not a matter of individual free choice. In Switzerland, defence of the nation is not a job for professional soldiers or for people who join the army to learn technical skills for civilian jobs. Defence of the nation is the responsibility of every male citizen. ". So in this context, you could say that guns are the tools of their trade. Their militia actually fights in battles. When was the last time an american civilian had to fight for his country?
The UK has a very low gun ownership rate, yet they have more homicides per capita than France, Sweden and Norway, all three of which have much more guns per capita than the UK does (about 1 for every 3 people, compared to about 7 for every 100 in the UK).
According to the Wiki article England and Wales are doing great. Could you show me a cite of the UK doing so bad?
Your argument that more guns equals less safety, and vice versa that less guns equal more safety, holds no weight here, so let's just toss it.
Lol, just lol. I show you dozens of safer country and you barely manage to show me one that's doing bad and my argument is out of the window?
Two problems with that source:
1. That number is from 1994. The gun buyback happened 1997.
2. It only addresses gun-related deaths, not all crimes. And since the buyback, rates of assaults and sexual assaults have risen. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Alright, I'll give you this one.
It would be impossible; a complete logistical nightmare - not to mention blatantly unconstitutional. But the legality of it aside, it still couldn't be done.
Here's what you could do. Close up all the gun stores. Make it all but illegal to own anything bigger than a .22. Ban all fully automatic weapons. Force all privately owned guns to be registered with the military. Don't allow people to carry weapons they already own outside of their home. Sounds like a good start doesn't it? Oh wait, that's what happened in Mexico. Yeah that's going real well for the people down there.
Let's take it a step further. Let's say the manufacture, sale, transport and ownership of firearms were completely banned. No guns allowed, period. Let's say you actually did, somehow, succeed in getting every last gun still around out of America. Congratulations, you've successfully disarmed the nation.
Now you just have to stop any gun from ever entering the country ever again, because of course there are still plenty out there in the rest of the world. The people in America who want them, and who don't care about breaking laws (criminals) will still find a way to get them. It would be no different than how the War on Drugs is going.
I can't see any possibility of how your idea would ever work, much less think it would be a good thing. Perhaps you can still convince me, because saying "it would be incredibly difficult and would take years and years" doesn't sound like much of a plan.
While you're at it, tell me how your laws and confiscations would stop criminals from possessing and using firearms? Because getting law abiding citizens who don't want any trouble to turn in their guns would be the easy part, but they're not the ones we're worried about are they?
Like I said in the other thread, the only solutions I ever get offered in support of gun control are just plain unrealistic. I've accepted that firearms are here to stay, and if the bad guys have them, then the victims should have them too.
And we go back to the infinite gun stash. Out of nowehere millions of guns will pop up everywhere to re-arm criminals. Sigh.
I'm not a lawmaker, it would take a team of dedicated thinkers to come up with a plan of this magnitude, so cut me some slack if I can't figure out the perfect solution instantly lol. That's like saying "We shouldn't feed the hungry around the world because it's a logistical nightmare". The point is that the end result would be far better then what we have today.
Part of the solution would be a shift in culture. Maybe if the next generation would grow up in an america that isn't flooded with the current gun culture, people wouldn't as often think to turn to guns when up to no good. Because that's the big secret of countries with few firearms; We don't grow up surrounded by guns. We have gangs, we have crimes, we have hate. But wouldn't you know, somehow we don't always turn to guns in these situations. At least not nearly as often as americans do.
Well, you don't deny that you know nothing about firearms, so that gives me a little insight as to how educated you are on the topic.
I've said once I didn't know assault weapons are illegal and now I know nothing about firearms at all? Nice strawman there.
you should check out some of the videos I linked to. Tell me how not having a gun would have helped, tell me how many people will facepalm to stories like those.
Those are very nice stories, people bravely standing up to defend themselves with guns. I"m sure it's a lot of comfort to the thousands who die from firearms each year. How many videos did you post again?
Wrong. If there were less guns, there'd be less gun-related crimes.
Gun crimes are crimes. So less guns = less gun crimes = less crimes. I am baffled by your quote.
There'd still be plenty of crime. Making guns go away wouldn't convince rapists to leave women and children alone. Ask the Australians how their gun confiscation turned out for them. Less crime you say?
The problem with your statement is that it's, well, meaningless. Your "arguments" are just opinions and predictions of what the world would be like if the impossible were to happen, and by impossible I mean getting rid of guns. It cannot be done.
Every gun-control supporter I've ever debated has come down to nothing but, "I wish the world was like this instead of... how much safer we'd be if only..."
It's all just wishes. What's your solution? You want to take up an anti-gun position? Fine.
Wishes? Did you check the link in my previous post? THE REST OF THE WESTERN WORLD IS SAFER THAN THE US. Show me one study that shows that the US is safer than Sweden,Norway, France, etc.. Show me ONE. Until then stop talking about wishing. Why do people like you try so hard to ignore how so many countries are perfectly safe without guns?
I say we even the odds and give the victims a fighting chance. That's my position. What's yours?
Your position if to "even" the odds by letting everyone have guns. My position is to even odds by not letting anyone have guns.
Or are you actually going to argue that it is feasible to find and confiscate every single one of the tens of millions of firearms in this country? I'd love to hear how that could be accomplished.
Oh I don't deny it would be incredibly difficult and would take years and years to accomplish. However it is the only possible solution. For years guns keep getting sold in the US and the problem is only getting worse. Why continue a course that doesn't work?
Any time God does anything, it is for the best. Sometimes that effort is recognizable to humans, sometimes it isn't.
That explanation could work, if God was not so inconsistent.
Well, this is basically off-topic, but I'm curious why you think a person couldn't simply pray harder, or pray again?
As I said in the very quote afterwards, God knows what you want and how much you want it. If you needed to prayer harder or multiple times, it would betray a failing on God's part in understanding your prayer.
Then what's your problem with an act of supplication?
Well first you shouldn't even need to pray. If people need help God should help them regardless if they pray or not. What if a pilot loses consciousness in the air and his plane starts falling. Should God ignore him because he isn't actively praying?
Thanks. But in all seriousness, what amount of lethality should a tool have?What makes guns ok but nukes too much? That's the point of my example. Why allow handguns and not rifles? They are the same type of tools, one just does it a lot faster than the other.
Not all illegal guns came from a gun store at some point.
Do tell, where do they come from? Seriously, where is this underground black market gun factory?
The majority of illegal guns that started in a gun store are the ones that are stolen from civilians. And those account for, at most, 15% of guns used by criminals. The other 85% were most likely smuggled into the United States, probably from south of the border. So banning guns from civilian ownership would only serve to disarm law abiding citizens and barely slow criminal acquisition of firearms for their crimes. That is not even remotely a fair trade off.
Cite please?
The facts have been laid out for you. People who otherwise disagree on a lot of topics (for example: me, bocephus, Vaclav, and Jay13x) have given you the facts and essentially told you that your beliefs are based on Hollywood-origin fears that don't actually exist in the real world. Hell, until this thread you didn't even know that assault rifles are banned from civilian ownership (by your own admission).
Nice. "OH all those people told you you're wrong, you should give up". And yes, gun laws don't work in the real world, except for..you know, every other western country in the world. Again, America is the only western country where the gun problem is that bad. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
"Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability.[23][27][28]"
"The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than most other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[43]"
All we can do is show you the facts. If you and others choose to willfully remain ignorant of the truth and recite falsities about firearms like it's the Gospel, that is on you. We can't force you to accept the truth about firearms, and it really is a waste of time and energy to continue giving you the same facts for you to ignore time and again.
You haven't show me many facts, only accused me of taking my beliefs from hollywood. If you don't want to discuss this then don't, just don't throw me this "I'm so obviously right you should stop talking" thing.
But it is true though. Without a person using it, a gun is completely harmless. It's just an inert chunk of shaped metal with moving parts. Without a person to physically pull the trigger, the gun is harmless.
And without a person to push the button a bomb is harmless, what's your point?
Does that mean I can sue Ford if a Mustang hits me on the road? If it's not the driver's fault for driving correctly, clearly it is the Mustang's fault and Ford must be held accountable.
Blaming guns for what people do with them is like blaming the car and not the driver for an accident, or blaming the pen or pencil for you failing the test. Guns are a tool, nothing more and nothing less. Without a person to use the gun, it is nothing more than a harmless inert chunk of shaped metal.
You know you're right. Guns are just a tool. You know what, we should sell grenades. And mustard gas. Why stop there, I say every billionaire should have his own nuke. Because they're tools, you can't blame the tool if something bad happens right? /sarcasm
As for your naive "if there's less guns around, then there's going to be less crimes around" line...that's been disproven. A lot of times. Criminals won't magically stop committing crimes because guns are illegal, because the guns they are buying on the street are already illegal. And even if you somehow got every gun off the street, criminals would still find ways to commit crimes. Just look at all the countries with strict gun control laws - they still have comparable crime rates to the US, because the criminals just find other ways to arm themselves for their crimes.
I'd like to see those statistics. What is this country with strict gun laws and similar gun crimes?
And yes, that is the big fear of gun owners; that criminal have their hidden stash of infinite guns. Those guns have to come from somewhere, they had to come from a gun store at some point. Make less guns and restrict who can have then and not only will it be harder to find guns, because of rarity they will be much more expensive which will make it even harder to acquire them. Why do so many people refuse to believe that tough gun laws will mean less guns in circulation? Even illegal ones?
First off, Constitutional scholars have long held the belief that the Second Amendment described two distinct groups based on how it was written and how punctuation was used. This SCOTUS decision had nothing to do with the gun lobby, it was merely the supreme court of our country confirming what Constitutional scholars have been saying for a long time.
Second, the Militia Act of 1903 was passed a LONG time ago. There was no gun lobby in 1903.
Yes I've heard about the whole playing around punctuation thing. The fact remains that people willfully passed laws to circumvent the 2nd amendment.
I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And there are people out there who would have no issues taking those rights from me. Why should I not be allowed to defend myself against them?
Again, only in America do people believe that you need guns to protect your rights.
That's what truly baffles the rest of the western world. This strange fantasy that one days the president, whoever he is at the time, will abolish the republic and start the Empire of America under his complete control, and when they will come for you, you'll be ready to defend your family.
Except that's not how it's happening. It's happening little by little in congress. Heck, was there an armed uprising when Bush allowed wiretapping? Abolished Habeas Corpus? Kidnapped random innocent people and detain them indefinitely for interrogation?
Once again, why should law abiding citizens like me who legally purchased our weapons and legally carry them with a license be punished by having our rights taken away because of the actions of criminals?
Because guns are the problem, not the solution. Because if there's less guns around, then there's going to be less crimes around.
The prayers I describe regard self-sanctification,
"Can God reduce suffering in part?" Yes, and at least in the past, He did so. It is possible miracles occur to this day. I personally don't think they are as prevalent as they have been in the past; Humanity has continually pushed God to the fringes and His evident presence has waned throughout history.[/quote]Well that's a whole different question, namely why was God all over the place during this short period of time and refused to show up since? God just needs to show up for five second during the super bowl half time to gain millions of instant converts.
In this stage of the testimony, I believe that at a minimum authority exists for us to pray for self-sanctification. For instance, earnest prayers for self-conviction are within our authority. Prayers for the conviction of others is not.
So can you at least agree that praying for others is futile?
Why? He's Omnibenevolent and Omniscient, there's no reason he would not take the best course of action in any situation, as it would betray a failing in some part.
In those cases, I suggested that it's time to start praying for something else, not abandon prayer. (Although I do admit this suggestion is my own personal belief, not based in anything other than my own experience. Sometimes, I hear, redoubling your efforts does wonders.)
Failed prayers? Redoubling efforts? That makes no sense.
God shouldn't need convincing. He already knows your deepest wishes.
1) The Second Amendment was ruled as an individual right by the Supreme Court, not a collective right exclusive to militias.
2) Under the Militia Act of 1903, which is still standing law, all able bodied men in this nation are members of the Reserve Militia until the age of 45 (for veterans like me, it's 65). So even if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right, that law makes almost everyone in this country a member of the militia and thus eligible to own firearms.
Point one and two simply confirm what I said, which is that the gun lobby worked to change the amendment to "everyone gets guns". Do you truly believe the founding fathers wanted everyone to have guns just for the hell of it? The amendment clearly meant for gun ownership to be restrained to a specific group of people and for a specific purpose. And it makes it even more maddening that they would make laws to circumvent the original meaning of the amendment when you consider how many politicians love to talk about how american has to stay true to the ideals of the constitution and bill of rights.
I did not know it was illegal to have assault rifles, my bad. The way people keep talking about it I thought it was legal in some states. Let's change my argument slightly then. Could the founding fathers imagine concealed handguns with magazines which still allow one person to kill a bunch of people before anyone can react? Point is "Firearms" did not mean what it meant then. As the meaning of the word change, logically should the law itself not change?
You realize that Canada has a pretty big problem with gun-related suicides, right?
Your point?
And we have a genie out of the bottle issue here, too. We already have so many guns flooding the streets, that if we severely restrict gun purchases, all we are doing is denying the average citizen a firearm, not the criminals who acquire them illegally.
I never understood this circular argument. "They already have guns so give them more guns to solve the gun problem"?
Do you honestly think people in this country want access to firearms because we're just like little children who want to play with toys that go bang? Because that's what you sound like. But you are obviously someone who knows nothing about firearms.
After seeing a gun show once, yes, that's exactly why lots of americans want guns.
"the right to bear arms shall not be infringed..." I don't see how using that to justify firearms ownership is puzzling. It's very clear cut. And just because there's a part about a militia that isn't always quoted with the rest of it doesn't make the 2nd Amendment's meaning any less clear.
See above.
This is just more stereotypical anti-gun talk from a non-American who - I'm assuming - knows nothing about guns. There are people who depend on their firearms for their safety. You sound just like every other foreigner, and sadly many Americans, who thinks that all gun owners are just a bunch of dumb, trigger happy rednecks.
My advice to you two? Go shooting. Give it a try. Before you judge anyone or start forming opinions, try educating yourselves a bit on the other side of the issue.
Emphasis mine. Again, it's amusing that only in America do people thing guns are so important. Only in America do so many people believe that the answer to crime is arming their citizen. Which is why when things like Columbine or Virginia Tech happens and a gun owndership proponent goes on the news and say "We need more guns, if the victims had guns this wouldn't happen" the rest of the western world facepalms.
If the people in a country say "well, I don't care if people get injured or killed, as long as I can play with my gun", then that's their opinion. And if they think that the price of pain and blood and sorrow is worth those toys, then ok.
And whenever someone gets shot or injured there, I'll just shrug, because that's what they wanted.
But, I'm German. None of my dozen friends owns a gun. Not even the guy who works for the military. They're not necessary here.
As a Canadian I agree and from experience most non-americans wonder why americans are so obsessed with their guns or why they refuse to admit that the increased prevalence of guns in the US just exacerbates the problem.
Also I find it quite puzzling that americans use the second amendment as justification for firearm owndership. It's fairly obvious proponents of firearm ownership played with that one to suit their purpose, the way most people like to ignore mentions of militias or security of the state. To gun enthusiasts, the second amendment is "Get yer guns!". Not to mention the firearms at that time were so awkward; Single shot, long to reload. I can't think the founding fathers wanted citizen to own assault rifles. I can't think the founding father could imagine assault rifles.
Heck, it's kind of built into the topic of prayer, isn't it? There would be no need for prayer in a just universe.
What I'm saying is that there's no point in prayer in an unjust universe.
Yet rejecting the idea of God or prayer is not the only possible recourse to this information: humility in the face of greater power is one of those paths, or realizing that cruelty and benevolence aren't exclusive to one another.
Oh I don't doubt that, that's part of the dilemma actually. If God, even though he is benevolent, is also cruel enough to let all this suffering happen, then he obviously does not listen to his faithful.
[/quote]Huh? I don't follow. I'm not suggesting that you pray for stuff you know you're not going to get.[/quote]
I was referring to your earlier example
prayers to ease the suffering of all involved, all may have an effect even if your loved one still dies.
You mischaracterized what I said. I said I pray for wisdom, understanding and compassion. These things do not necessarily relieve mental anguish; In fact, they are more typically exceedingly disconcerting.
It doesn't really matter what you pray for. The idea is that if God will not answer prayers to save innocents, why would he listen to your prayers? Maybe god wants you to be foolish, bigoted and cruel, just like he apparently wants children raped and babies born crippled.
This is based in the assumption that there is only one good and correct (or "best") course that could be taken, however. Certainly a omniscient, omnibenevolent, and I'd like to emphasize omnipotent god could find a way to both carry out his plan and yet bolster his follower's earnest desires.
You don't need to emphasize, it's the whole point of the dilemma we're discussing. And it seems truly cruel to have a deity make children suffer and say it was for the best. I mean it's one thing to go back to the Plan explanation with the belief that it "works out" in the end, but unless I"m mistaken you're suggesting that suffering exists because God deemed it the most benevolent way?
You're trying to set up an either-or, pass/fail situation here where God either directly intercedes and halts the cancer or the prayer has failed, but I'd suggest that there is more than one prayer to be made in the face of this particular adversity: prayers for strength in time of need, prayers of acceptance of the will of God, prayers to ease the suffering of all involved, all may have an effect even if your loved one still dies.
So what's the point of praying if even when it "works", your prayer is still not fulfilled? What would the effect be in this situation?
interventionism and predestination aren't mutually exclusive but you seem to be drawing the conclusion that they are.
I know you're responding to Blinking Spirit here but, in case you hadn't notice, it's the entire point of my original post.
This topic assumes predestination when there's no good reason to do so. "Plan" =/= "script." Ever try to write a book, movie, etc.? There's plenty of room for the alteration of the minutiae while still being consistent to the plot.
Then if God can change his Plan at will, it brings back the question, why let suffering happen?
Prayer is the communication with deities. It could be about a host of different topics.
The problem of evil deserves it own thread. You should create one. Unfortunately Churches do not save people. Only the man above can do that.
There was a thread about it a year ago I believe. It all boiled down to the Plan, and how we must have faith. I've also talked to many people about the God & Evil dilemma with many, including a professor of theology and it always boils down to the Plan.
Yes, Prayer is communication with deities. But said communication is often to ask for those deities' help.
I think the issue is that death, suffering and evil were not part of "the plan", but because some angels and humanity sinned, they became manifest. Did God foresee this and allow it? Probaby. Was sin inevitable or necessary for "the plan"? IMO, no.
.
If evil and suffering are not part of the Plan, why does God allow them? Can he not get rid of them? Or is he allowing them to impede his own plan?
Also I was waiting for the also predictable answer of "I don't use Prayer to ask for things, I pray to ask God for courage courage, peace, etc...". The problem with that is, if God will not prevent physical suffering, why would he help relieve mental anguish? Maybe being keeping us afraid and insecure is also part of the Plan.
Here's a contradiction in religion I always found intriguing.
Whenever people ask why God lets bad things happen, the most common answers are "God works in mysterious ways", "God meant for things to happen this way" or "It's all part of God's plan"
So basically God has a plan that us lowly mortals can't comprehend but basically it goes;
1. Horrible suffering to innocent people
2. ????
3. Profits
Ok, let's say God has a perfect plan going on. Then why do people pray? Is prayer not the act of asking God to act on your behalf? Why should He listen to you is he already has a plan for what's going to happen next?
It seems to me that Prayer and the Plan are incompatible.
And once you separate them they both show infortunate implications.
If God has a plan and prayer is useless, it means we are at the mercy of an unstoppable god, and we can only follow our destiny.
If God truly listens to prayer, then we go back to the original problem of the suffering of the innocent. Did they not pray hard enough? Do I need to get closer to the local church to get my 4 bars on the God network?
I would really like any faithful to explain to me how you can accept God's Plan and still believe in praying to Him.
What flaw in my argument? I only asked to show one country that had it worse and by digging at straws you finally digged one up. Meanwhile as I keep saying dozens of countries are still safer with less guns.
A great example is Norway. Here's what's fascinating about their culture; While they do have a strong hunting culture, if you apply for a license and write "self-defense" as the reason, it will get denied. And concealed carry is forbidden. That's not what guns are for in Norway. On top of that, the police prefers to remain unarmed. You tell me, why hasn't a gang of criminals armed themselves with the infinite gun stash and rained death on this country yet?
But then, Norway was faced with tragedy when Anders Breivik opened fire in that summer camp. That should be exhibit A for less gun control right? Not so. While there were complaints that the police took too long to intervene and that Anders' sentence is too lenient, the norwegians didn't flock to their leaders demanding to be able to carry guns.
I just find it fascinating that the Swiss are living the second amendment better than Americans ever have.
I'm looking at the numbers and I see "In the United Kingdom, annual deaths resulting from firearms total
2009: 13811"
"In the United Kingdom, annual homicides by any means total
2009: 724"
In other words, a minority of homicide are caused by guns.
Protip for arguing on the internet : Don't just post links, post the revelant tidbits of information. I"m certainly not going to do your research for you. I've looked at Gunpolicy and did not find the information you claimed in your argument.
You've haven't proved much so far. And you keep ignoring how so many countries are safer with less guns.
Mexico is more or less ruled by drug cartels. They are the source or most of the violence over there. If an organised crime gang takes over the US to the point that the police is helpless against them then by all means form a militia and defend your state.
And that just doesn't make sense. You can't seriously claim that every single criminal will instantly find a new gun.
Agreed, which is why I never claimed that. No country is completely unarmed. Gun Control is not Gun Ban. I"m afraid you're also arguing with absolutes. I've never said all guns should be eliminated, only that lower gun possession is necessary
I do because I've mentionned time and again all these countries doing great with less guns. We know it can work, we know it's possible.
Which is why a culture shift is necessary first. I am also aware that the current generation would never agree to let go of their guns. And again it would take many years. But as the time go by the young generation might not be surrounded by so many guns and in turn the following generation may not even have to deal with guns.
I've done paintball shooting (those things can sting!). Otherwise I have never felt the need or desire to shoot a real gun.
Ok, I want the cite of the hypothetical 2.5 million saved lives. Or you could give me the 100,000. But I'd really love to see the study supporting 2,5 millions. According to the latest figures, there's 350,000,000 firearms in america. That suggests that every year, one in 140 people is threatened and then saved by a gun. That's nearly 7 thousands a day. You'd have to have crazy constant shootouts to get to that figure.
Oh good. You named one. Meanwhile I already named you three countries that are safer and can name so many more.
Also, the thing with Switzerland is that they take a completely different approach to firearm ownership. I would highly suggest this non-partisan article that tries to see how americans can relate to the swiss
http://guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
Basically it talks about how the Swiss sees gun ownership as part of their military duty, they take the whole "militia" thing very seriously,
"The same point might be made about guns. Although guns are more available to the Swiss, Swiss gun culture is more authoritarian than America's. Gun ownership is a mandatory community duty, not a matter of individual free choice. In Switzerland, defence of the nation is not a job for professional soldiers or for people who join the army to learn technical skills for civilian jobs. Defence of the nation is the responsibility of every male citizen. ". So in this context, you could say that guns are the tools of their trade. Their militia actually fights in battles. When was the last time an american civilian had to fight for his country?
According to the Wiki article England and Wales are doing great. Could you show me a cite of the UK doing so bad?
Lol, just lol. I show you dozens of safer country and you barely manage to show me one that's doing bad and my argument is out of the window?
Alright, I'll give you this one.
And we go back to the infinite gun stash. Out of nowehere millions of guns will pop up everywhere to re-arm criminals. Sigh.
I'm not a lawmaker, it would take a team of dedicated thinkers to come up with a plan of this magnitude, so cut me some slack if I can't figure out the perfect solution instantly lol. That's like saying "We shouldn't feed the hungry around the world because it's a logistical nightmare". The point is that the end result would be far better then what we have today.
Part of the solution would be a shift in culture. Maybe if the next generation would grow up in an america that isn't flooded with the current gun culture, people wouldn't as often think to turn to guns when up to no good. Because that's the big secret of countries with few firearms; We don't grow up surrounded by guns. We have gangs, we have crimes, we have hate. But wouldn't you know, somehow we don't always turn to guns in these situations. At least not nearly as often as americans do.
Who are these hundreds of thousand a year? You talk a lot but provide very little stats.
Those are very nice stories, people bravely standing up to defend themselves with guns. I"m sure it's a lot of comfort to the thousands who die from firearms each year. How many videos did you post again?
Gun crimes are crimes. So less guns = less gun crimes = less crimes. I am baffled by your quote.
Wishes? Did you check the link in my previous post? THE REST OF THE WESTERN WORLD IS SAFER THAN THE US. Show me one study that shows that the US is safer than Sweden,Norway, France, etc.. Show me ONE. Until then stop talking about wishing. Why do people like you try so hard to ignore how so many countries are perfectly safe without guns?
PS : According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate The Australians are doing quite well thank you.
Your position if to "even" the odds by letting everyone have guns. My position is to even odds by not letting anyone have guns.
Oh I don't deny it would be incredibly difficult and would take years and years to accomplish. However it is the only possible solution. For years guns keep getting sold in the US and the problem is only getting worse. Why continue a course that doesn't work?
As I said in the very quote afterwards, God knows what you want and how much you want it. If you needed to prayer harder or multiple times, it would betray a failing on God's part in understanding your prayer.
Well first you shouldn't even need to pray. If people need help God should help them regardless if they pray or not. What if a pilot loses consciousness in the air and his plane starts falling. Should God ignore him because he isn't actively praying?
Do tell, where do they come from? Seriously, where is this underground black market gun factory?
Cite please?
Nice. "OH all those people told you you're wrong, you should give up". And yes, gun laws don't work in the real world, except for..you know, every other western country in the world. Again, America is the only western country where the gun problem is that bad. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
"Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. Higher rates are found in developing countries and those with political instability.[23][27][28]"
"The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than most other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[43]"
You still haven't told me which country has stricter laws and worse gun crimes than the US. According to wiki; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Only 10 countries have more gun related deaths.
Is it Honduras? Called the murder capital of the world? http://www.policymic.com/articles/3551/honduras-murder-capital-of-the-world-proof-that-nra-s-gun-freedom-dream-is-flawed
You haven't show me many facts, only accused me of taking my beliefs from hollywood. If you don't want to discuss this then don't, just don't throw me this "I'm so obviously right you should stop talking" thing.
And without a person to push the button a bomb is harmless, what's your point?
Here's a bonus video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeVG0C9HQc0&feature=relmfu
You know you're right. Guns are just a tool. You know what, we should sell grenades. And mustard gas. Why stop there, I say every billionaire should have his own nuke. Because they're tools, you can't blame the tool if something bad happens right? /sarcasm
I'd like to see those statistics. What is this country with strict gun laws and similar gun crimes?
And yes, that is the big fear of gun owners; that criminal have their hidden stash of infinite guns. Those guns have to come from somewhere, they had to come from a gun store at some point. Make less guns and restrict who can have then and not only will it be harder to find guns, because of rarity they will be much more expensive which will make it even harder to acquire them. Why do so many people refuse to believe that tough gun laws will mean less guns in circulation? Even illegal ones?
Again, only in America do people believe that you need guns to protect your rights.
That's what truly baffles the rest of the western world. This strange fantasy that one days the president, whoever he is at the time, will abolish the republic and start the Empire of America under his complete control, and when they will come for you, you'll be ready to defend your family.
Except that's not how it's happening. It's happening little by little in congress. Heck, was there an armed uprising when Bush allowed wiretapping? Abolished Habeas Corpus? Kidnapped random innocent people and detain them indefinitely for interrogation?
Because guns are the problem, not the solution. Because if there's less guns around, then there's going to be less crimes around.
"Can God reduce suffering in part?" Yes, and at least in the past, He did so. It is possible miracles occur to this day. I personally don't think they are as prevalent as they have been in the past; Humanity has continually pushed God to the fringes and His evident presence has waned throughout history.[/quote]Well that's a whole different question, namely why was God all over the place during this short period of time and refused to show up since? God just needs to show up for five second during the super bowl half time to gain millions of instant converts.
So can you at least agree that praying for others is futile?
Why? He's Omnibenevolent and Omniscient, there's no reason he would not take the best course of action in any situation, as it would betray a failing in some part.
Failed prayers? Redoubling efforts? That makes no sense.
God shouldn't need convincing. He already knows your deepest wishes.
Point one and two simply confirm what I said, which is that the gun lobby worked to change the amendment to "everyone gets guns". Do you truly believe the founding fathers wanted everyone to have guns just for the hell of it? The amendment clearly meant for gun ownership to be restrained to a specific group of people and for a specific purpose. And it makes it even more maddening that they would make laws to circumvent the original meaning of the amendment when you consider how many politicians love to talk about how american has to stay true to the ideals of the constitution and bill of rights.
I did not know it was illegal to have assault rifles, my bad. The way people keep talking about it I thought it was legal in some states. Let's change my argument slightly then. Could the founding fathers imagine concealed handguns with magazines which still allow one person to kill a bunch of people before anyone can react? Point is "Firearms" did not mean what it meant then. As the meaning of the word change, logically should the law itself not change?
Your point?
I never understood this circular argument. "They already have guns so give them more guns to solve the gun problem"?
After seeing a gun show once, yes, that's exactly why lots of americans want guns.
See above.
Emphasis mine. Again, it's amusing that only in America do people thing guns are so important. Only in America do so many people believe that the answer to crime is arming their citizen. Which is why when things like Columbine or Virginia Tech happens and a gun owndership proponent goes on the news and say "We need more guns, if the victims had guns this wouldn't happen" the rest of the western world facepalms.
As a Canadian I agree and from experience most non-americans wonder why americans are so obsessed with their guns or why they refuse to admit that the increased prevalence of guns in the US just exacerbates the problem.
Also I find it quite puzzling that americans use the second amendment as justification for firearm owndership. It's fairly obvious proponents of firearm ownership played with that one to suit their purpose, the way most people like to ignore mentions of militias or security of the state. To gun enthusiasts, the second amendment is "Get yer guns!". Not to mention the firearms at that time were so awkward; Single shot, long to reload. I can't think the founding fathers wanted citizen to own assault rifles. I can't think the founding father could imagine assault rifles.
Oh I don't doubt that, that's part of the dilemma actually. If God, even though he is benevolent, is also cruel enough to let all this suffering happen, then he obviously does not listen to his faithful.
[/quote]Huh? I don't follow. I'm not suggesting that you pray for stuff you know you're not going to get.[/quote]
I was referring to your earlier example
How does that work?
It doesn't really matter what you pray for. The idea is that if God will not answer prayers to save innocents, why would he listen to your prayers? Maybe god wants you to be foolish, bigoted and cruel, just like he apparently wants children raped and babies born crippled.
So what's the point of praying if even when it "works", your prayer is still not fulfilled? What would the effect be in this situation?
I know you're responding to Blinking Spirit here but, in case you hadn't notice, it's the entire point of my original post.
Then if God can change his Plan at will, it brings back the question, why let suffering happen?
There was a thread about it a year ago I believe. It all boiled down to the Plan, and how we must have faith. I've also talked to many people about the God & Evil dilemma with many, including a professor of theology and it always boils down to the Plan.
Yes, Prayer is communication with deities. But said communication is often to ask for those deities' help.
If evil and suffering are not part of the Plan, why does God allow them? Can he not get rid of them? Or is he allowing them to impede his own plan?
Also I was waiting for the also predictable answer of "I don't use Prayer to ask for things, I pray to ask God for courage courage, peace, etc...". The problem with that is, if God will not prevent physical suffering, why would he help relieve mental anguish? Maybe being keeping us afraid and insecure is also part of the Plan.
Whenever people ask why God lets bad things happen, the most common answers are "God works in mysterious ways", "God meant for things to happen this way" or "It's all part of God's plan"
So basically God has a plan that us lowly mortals can't comprehend but basically it goes;
1. Horrible suffering to innocent people
2. ????
3. Profits
Ok, let's say God has a perfect plan going on. Then why do people pray? Is prayer not the act of asking God to act on your behalf? Why should He listen to you is he already has a plan for what's going to happen next?
It seems to me that Prayer and the Plan are incompatible.
And once you separate them they both show infortunate implications.
If God has a plan and prayer is useless, it means we are at the mercy of an unstoppable god, and we can only follow our destiny.
If God truly listens to prayer, then we go back to the original problem of the suffering of the innocent. Did they not pray hard enough? Do I need to get closer to the local church to get my 4 bars on the God network?
I would really like any faithful to explain to me how you can accept God's Plan and still believe in praying to Him.