|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted April 28, 2011 05:55 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 17:59, 28 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
Jesus again says he is about to die and that in light of this each disciple should buy a sword.
Quote:
Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Clearly the claim of the author of the article that the "sword" in the verse is "the Word of God" is pure bunk. This is a practical teaching of Jesus about them needing to defend themselves soon and that they would need to buy provisions as they traveled around because they would not be welcomed into the houses of their fellow Jews as they traveled. Previously as they traveled people would welcome Jesus and the disciples into their house and provide for their needs. Now they would need to buy provisions to carry with them. They would need swords for self defense. The times they are a changing.
Are you sure? The very next line (Luke 22:38) goes like this: Quote:
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
How can a dozen men defend themselves with two swords? Wasn't Jesus speaking of the fulfillment of the prophecy? (Isaiah 53: "because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, for he bore the sin of many"). In other words, that two swords would be enough to put Jesus in the ranks of armed brigands ("transgressors")? When a few hours later Peter did use one of the swords, Jesus told him to put it back.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 06:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jesus again says he is about to die and that in light of this each disciple should buy a sword.
Quote:
Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Clearly the claim of the author of the article that the "sword" in the verse is "the Word of God" is pure bunk. This is a practical teaching of Jesus about them needing to defend themselves soon and that they would need to buy provisions as they traveled around because they would not be welcomed into the houses of their fellow Jews as they traveled. Previously as they traveled people would welcome Jesus and the disciples into their house and provide for their needs. Now they would need to buy provisions to carry with them. They would need swords for self defense. The times they are a changing.
Are you sure? The very next line (Luke 22:38) goes like this: Quote:
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
How can a dozen men defend themselves with two swords? Wasn't Jesus speaking of the fulfillment of the prophecy? (Isaiah 53: "because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, for he bore the sin of many"). In other words, that two swords would be enough to put Jesus in the ranks of armed brigands ("transgressors")? When a few hours later Peter did use one of the swords, Jesus told him to put it back.
Yep, I'm sure. Jesus was giving practical instructions as I've shown.
Jesus was not talking about his disciples becoming armed thieves. He was saying that they needed to be armed for protection. While the 11 (12-Judas) were all together with a couple of swords being visible would be enough. As they eventually separated and traveled to different locations each group would need swords.
Yes, being numbered with the transgressors was Jesus telling them that it was prophesied he was died at that the prophecy was about to be fulfilled.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 06:09 PM |
|
|
Let's see:
Christians are unable to kill and if you kill, you are not a Christian. Quoting St. Elodin, epistle to the Heroes Community "What would have happened...", 7:15
Quote:
We know from the Bible that anyone who claims to be a Christian but who does not follow the teachings of Christ is not in fact a Christian. Anyone who claimed to be a Christian who murdered anyone is a liar according to the New Testament writings. In fact, no true Christian so much as hates another person.
Quote:
The Bible says if you claim Jesus is your Lord but are not following his commandments you are a liar.
Quoting the sixth commandment of Yahveh, official final edition:
Quote:
6. You must not kill.
Quoting St. Elodin, epistle to the Heroes Community "A Biblical hypothetical" 20:19
Quote:
If he is climbing through my window or kicks my door down or if he is already in my house when I first see him he is a dead man.
At first I wanted to quote Aristotle on the subject of logic as well but the poor man already suffered enough.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 06:11 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
Your remarks show zero consistency & zero logic !
Bible says
"But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well."
Which means if somebody enters your home and threatens your family, so be it, Jesus never preached "defend yourself or your loved ones by killing the threat"
Bible says
"thou shalt not kill" and not "thou shalt not kill when it suits your agenda"
The only christianity you represent in your "preachings" is the perception of christianity from your subjective point of view and from what I've witnessed so far, you're acting like a blind man whos being led by another blind man.
I have yet to see someone who keeps contradicting himself as much as you do.
Do some soul searching and reorganize your thoughts.
|
|
Lumske_Beaver
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 06:46 PM |
bonus applied by angelito on 28 Apr 2011. |
|
@Elodin - Why do you even bother taking part in a discussion? You have a predetermined opinion about everything you discuss and are not willing to change your mind no matter how reasonable, well structured and formulated and valid arguments of others are? A great example is JJ's reference to Paul John II's speech where JJ and others virtually word by word explained to you what he actually said and implied, but you completely refused and kept on stating the biblical quotations that the pope refered to as symbolic languages and imagery.
Is it an act of love towards everybody to arrogantly ignore what they say and whole-heartedly believe that you are better, cleverer and more right than everybody else to a such extent that if they do not agree with you, you classify them as irrational atheist?
Is it an act of love to (attempt to) ridilule (in a self-defeating and childish manner) through use of silly and unnecessary posters?
Is it an act of love to kill an illegal intruder before understanding what his intentions are. Then it is not an act of self-defense nor accidental killing, but of murder (which you would also be charged and judged for in such situation). You believe to love everybody, but you would kill a person that may pose a threat to you or you family? This is an evident example of you using a haphazard quote in the bible to defend a belief of yours. You apply the quote to your own comprehension of self-defense (a comprehension that you would not alterate whatever arguments you are presented)and your own regulations for what situations you can apply the idea of self-defense to and what methods to apply. Could you not thread the intruder with your gunif you think he has evil intentions rather than just shooting him down in the first place? In fact, you have no justification from the Bible for self-defense except from the idea of it, but not for how and when to apply it (based on your presented quotations). Using them for justification therefore seems to be a pragmatic use of the Bible to validate your actions and opinions.
Is it an act of love to ascribe some the worst cruelties in the history of man led individuals who seemingly were atheist to atheism in genereal and thus everybody not believing in a god? It rather looks like an egoncentric, fanatic and spiteful generalisation against various persons of all sorts with a different believe than you. Indeed, a kind a benevolent act like those of USA the last century.
Also I am interested in how the American "withc hunt" against communism esp. in the 1950s to 1970s can be seen as kind and benevolent. In a country based on the values of democracy with freedom of speech and belief as its core values how can allegiance to a political ideal i.e. communism be persecuted and punished for nothing but support of an ideology.
Furthermore in the Dominica Repupblic in 1963 a popular uprising of the Constitutionalist, that had been unjutsly toppled in 1963 by a military coup with the support of the most powerful families of the Dominican Republic, the church, military and the CIA, occured and despite grave violence of the miliary government succeeded in reclaiming the 1963 constitution. Subsequently the military government informed the US that a ‘Communist takeover’ is taking place, and requested martial aid. The US responded by sending more than 50,000 marines and a coalition UN army with other allied countries (Brazil, Nicaragua, Mexico, etc.
This wore down the Dominican forces and afterwards many Dominacan and in the peace negotiations in return for American reparations many Dominican companies were overtaken by American investors.
The President of the US Lyndon B. Johnson stated in 1965 that "This hemisphere cannot afford the loss of another nation to Communism. We have learned enough from the experience with Cuba, and this time we are prepared to do what is necessary to defeat “Red threat”; This is a chain reaction under our very nose, and we must act quickly and decisively”
What threat is he in this case refering to? He suported a military dictatorship rather freely elected, social-democratic (not even communist and democratically elected!) government that had implemented a range of llberal initiatives for example seperation of church and government and because of the fear of an ideology. Between 6,000 and 10,000 Dominican died of wich most were civilians. As many deaths were caused by internal fightings, the US does not account for the majority of the deaths, but they nonetheless 'kindly and benevolently' waged a war against people on the basis that they had another ideology (note that this is a democracy with many liberal values and not even communism) than themselves. In fact, you could argue that the 1963 goverment of the Dominican Republic were more democratic than the US government with reference to the irrational legal persecution of communists in the US and the invasion off the Dominican Republic.
This was an act upon unilateral self-interest and has nothing to do with multilateral benevolence.
"Heavy in allegation and light in proof." That statement sounds befitting for other argumentation too, somehow?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 06:52 PM |
|
|
Well. As far as I remember, elodin earlier said the reason he takes part in discussions are to defend his beliefs against "outrageous claims" (something similar (bashing?), I think, but I am not certain).
That is at least my impression.
So I personally don't think it has anything to do with getting his beliefs challenged, learning something new, etc. But rather a belief in a duty to defend his beliefs to the degree possible.
Hopefully, should I have got it wrong, elodin will correct it.
Edit: I feel sorry that you've written such a, in my opinion, nice and well written post, when it won't get the threatment it deserves.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 07:36 PM |
|
|
You didn't provide a rational reply to me, Elodin. You provided, as per usual, fallacious arguments and flawed logic, just packed in a slightly prettier box.
The only actual thing you replied me with is this:
Quote:
When you read Luke 22 you will find the setting of this instruction of Christ.
1) Judas had made arrangements to betray Christ.
2) Jesus instructed his disciples where to go to set up the Passover meal.
3) Jesus during the last supper told his disciples he was about to be betrayed by one of them and that he would suffer and die and that things would get very nasty for them.
4) Jesus warned Peter that Satan wants to destroy him.
5) Jesus again says he is about to die and that in light of this each disciple should buy a sword.
Let's analyze this.
Judas made arrangements to betray Christ, alright. So Jesus knew there would be soldiers coming to get him. His disciples were, on the other hand, not soldiers and swords - TWO swords - wouldn't help them.
He told them where to set up the Passover meal, alright. What does that have to do with anything?
He told them someone was going to betray him and that he'd suffer and die. Alright. I still see no place for physical swords here, unless they ought to defend Jesus, or themselves (which they could not have done, as the enemy would overpower them easily), or kill the traitor, which I'm pretty sure wasn't the idea.
He told Peter Satan was out to get him. So uhm...
...
Good thing he had two swords then. I bet Satan didn't count on him having more than one.
Or did you mean a "metaphorical" Satan, meaning physical attackers? If so, why would he say "Satan" metaphorically, and "swords" literally? Doesn't it make more sense he said both metaphorically? Don't be afraid to lose what is material, stay on the right track, that's the only way we can defeat Satan's efforts to break us, doesn't that sound more like good ol' Jesus?
He told them he was about to die and that they should all get swords cause of that. Why? Why would they get those swords? People hated them before, there were brigands and crap before, why would they suddenly become so unsafe now? Because of Roman soldiers trying to arrest them? Well if they saw them with swords, they'd have killed them on the spot instead. And that'd actually be a Christian thing to do, right? Like when a cop chases a criminal and the criminal takes out a gun and the cop shoots him. Pure self defense. Who cares if the criminal took out the gun to defend himself from the cop, a cop is a cop, you don't pull weapons on him.
So that post of yours is actually a lot of nothing, really. But I do respect the effort. If you replied more like that, and less like you usually do, the OSM would be a better place.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 07:38 PM |
|
|
Also, Lumske, great post.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 08:08 PM |
|
|
@Zenofex
Clearly you have not paid enough attention to the teachings of Saint Elodin. 
Clearly I have stated in this thread and in a number of other places that all killing is not murder and I have proved that the Bible in fact says that. Yes, a Christian can kill. No, a Christian can't murder.
And the specific instance I mentioned is spelled out in the Bible. If you kill a thief who has broken into your home you are guiltless.
Quote:
Exo 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
In fact your post appears to only be for trolling and provocation. Troll not, my son.
Quote:
@ Elodin
Your remarks show zero consistency & zero logic !
.....
The only christianity you represent in your "preachings" is the perception of christianity from your subjective point of view and from what I've witnessed so far, you're acting like a blind man whos being led by another blind man.
I have yet to see someone who keeps contradicting himself as much as you do.
Do some soul searching and reorganize your thoughts.
You just can't see and understand what the Bible says. I don't really think you put effort into understanding it.
Quote:
Bible says
"But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well."
Which means if somebody enters your home and threatens your family, so be it, Jesus never preached "defend yourself or your loved ones by killing the threat"
Context: In the sermon on the mount Jesus is corrected a number of things the Pharisees had been teaching that were incorrect. You see the phrases "you have heard it said....but I say" a number of times. The Pharisees had been teaching that personal revenge is ok. The Bible teaches that it is not. A slap across the face with the back of the hand was a custom to show disrespect, not a personal attack to had to be responded to for self-defense.
Quote:
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
When Jesus himself was slapped he did not literally turn his face to present the other cheek to be slapped. Jesus's plain instruction to buy a sword also makes your interpretation of the verse invalid.
Quote:
Joh 18:19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
Joh 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
Joh 18:21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.
Joh 18:22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Quote:
Jer 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.
Defending others is good, not evil. The Bible supports self defense and measured justice.
Quote:
Bible says
"thou shalt not kill" and not "thou shalt not kill when it suits your agenda"
The Bible says "Thou shalt not murder." Not all killing is murder as is quite clear from the Bible saying a man who kills a thief who is breaking into his home is not guilty of any wrongdoing. Proper research does not seem to suit your agenda.
I've quoted a number of instances from the Bible where God instructs certain people to be killed and says that killing in certain instances shall not be punished. For instance, if a person was found guilty of murder after a trial they would to be put to death by the community. Also, anyone killing a thief who broke into his house was guilty of no sin.
Quote:
(New International Version)
Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.
Exodus 21: 12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate.
14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
@Lumske_Beaver
Quote:
@Elodin - Why do you even bother taking part in a discussion? You have a predetermined opinion about everything you discuss and are not willing to change your mind no matter how reasonable, well structured and formulated and valid arguments of others are?
What you really mean is I don't agree with the predetermined opinion of atheists so I am wrong. I've never seen an atheist admit what he said was wrong about the Bible even presented with overwhelming evidence.
Most posts on religion by many atheists are full of insults. slander, and lies. As is your post.
Quote:
Well. As far as I remember, elodin earlier said the reason he takes part in discussions are to defend his beliefs against "outrageous claims" (something similar (bashing?), I think, but I am not certain).
That is at least my impression.
So I personally don't think it has anything to do with getting his beliefs challenged, learning something new, etc. But rather a belief in a duty to defend his beliefs to the degree possible.
I post to share my viewpoints and learn from others. Some post here merely to insult others and some to attack religion.
My first posts in the Heroes community were talking about different HOMM factions/strategies. I began reading other forums. I saw in the OSM that religion was being constantly lied about by atheists in the OSM and joined the discussion. Eventually most other Christians got tired of all the insults by atheists and stopped posting.
If you see read my first OSM posts you will see they were very nice and conciliatory. I appealed to the atheists to stop calling religious people delusional, irrational, ect but they refused. When I began to show how the beliefs of atheists could be considered delusional and irrational they began to cry rivers of tears and to mount crusades to have me banned. Ever since that time some atheists here have considered themselves to be at war with me and insult me continually and make periodic efforts to have me penalized.
@Baklava
I will respond to your post later tonight.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 08:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Jesus was not talking about his disciples becoming armed thieves. He was saying that they needed to be armed for protection. While the 11 (12-Judas) were all together with a couple of swords being visible would be enough. As they eventually separated and traveled to different locations each group would need swords.
Yes, being numbered with the transgressors was Jesus telling them that it was prophesied he was died at that the prophecy was about to be fulfilled.
So who were the transgressors?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jesus was not talking about his disciples becoming armed thieves. He was saying that they needed to be armed for protection. While the 11 (12-Judas) were all together with a couple of swords being visible would be enough. As they eventually separated and traveled to different locations each group would need swords.
Yes, being numbered with the transgressors was Jesus telling them that it was prophesied he was died at that the prophecy was about to be fulfilled.
So who were the transgressors?
Jesus was crucified between two thieves. He was "numbered" with them.
Quote:
Mar 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
Mar 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 08:27 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 20:31, 28 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
Clearly I have stated in this thread and in a number of other places that all killing is not murder and I have proved that the Bible in fact says that. Yes, a Christian can kill. No, a Christian can't murder.
Quote:
13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate.
14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
Therefor when you "kill" someone in self-defense, you are insane Christian. The other option is sane "murderer". That's cool!  
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 08:54 PM |
|
|
Speaking of which, didn't one of those two thieves accept Jesus as saviour and go to Heaven with him?
Would he get that chance if someone he stole from had killed him?
What I'm saying is the following:
-You believe that once you die and go to Heaven or Hell, you're there for eternity.
-You believe you have the right to kill any criminal intruding on your property.
-You believe you love your enemies.
-You believe that a Christian cannot commit a misdeed such as theft, so the moment you commit one, you are no longer a Christian until you repent.
So if you catch someone doing a misdeed, and kill him while he's doing it, he doesn't have a chance to repent, he is no Christian, and he definitely goes to Hell for all eternity. The intruder is, apparently, your enemy here, and you love him - would you send a person you love to an endless torment in Hell? And if you would, what's the meaning of that love? What is it worth?
Do you also have the right to kill someone who is stealing from someone you don't know?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 08:55 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 21:04, 28 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
@Angelito
Quote:
So Eldoin shoots someone to death who comes into his house in the night, even though this person doesn't want to harm him, but only wants to "steal" a piece of bread, because the bible says he is allowed to protect his family (and his bread?), but still loves the victim, because he is his enemy.
Or is he just allowed to shoot him dead because he is NOT his enemy?
The bible says you should LOVE your enemy. Is the Christian way of expressing love to someone to SHOOT HIM TO DEATH?
Interesting....but of course we won't get a reply to this contradiction 
If he is climbing through my window or kicks my door down or if he is already in my house when I first see him he is a dead man. If I can clearly see his hands and he is not holding a gun and he makes no sudden moves he might have a chance to live. But if he is a perceived threat in any way he dies so my family can live.
I love everyone but I love my family more and have an obligation to protect them. If a person is breaking in my house I am going to defend my family. You and JJ may chose to let him rape your children but I love my children enough to defend them.]Interesting statement from a Christian. It is completely different from what I ahve learned about Jesus and his points of view.
You already know someone who comes into your house will rape your children and kill your wife? Without talking to him? So he is guilty even before saying anything? Jesus will love you for that attitude Elodin
I am not sure why you are so afraid your family could be killed. You always tell us how a perfect Christian you are. So you and your family will go to heaven and have an eternal good life. Why bother about your existing here? Or do I hear some doubts about your afterlife here? 
And about the comparison of kill your enemy and love your enemy.
I have yet to see a bible quote where it says something like: "Thou shall only love your enemy if he doesn't rape your family".
And killing someone who has done NOTHING but coming into your house IS murder. No matter how often you repeat your "I wanted to protect my family" phrase!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 08:58 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 21:00, 28 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
Jesus was crucified between two thieves. He was "numbered" with them.
True, that's one interpretation. The second one refers to the actual context, i.e. Jesus' arrest. A contemporary translation makes it even more clear:Quote:
Jesus told them, "But now, if you have a money bag, take it with you. Also take a traveling bag, and if you don't have a sword, sell some of your clothes and buy one. Do this because the Scriptures say, "He was considered a criminal." This was written about me, and it will soon come true.
In other words, buy the weapons so that he is numbered among transgressors and thus fulfill the prophecy.
By the way, I think you're aware of both interpretations. The former justifies righteous violence, the latter promotes nonviolence.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 09:10 PM |
|
|
@Angelito:
At what point would you consider a person in a legitimate position to defend themself, if them breaking into your house does not suffice? Would you have to wait for them to knife you or somebody else before you can combat them? If it turns out they are in your house strictly to steal some of your stuff, would you be allowed to try to stop them?
Not that I think whipping out a Desert Eagle and blasting an intruder in the head without a 2nd thought is acceptable. I agree that that would be wrong. But let's look at a less radical scenario. If a person breaks into somebodies home, and the homeowner comes running out and the two of them get into a fight, and the intruder is defeated and needs to be hospitalized, is the homeowner guilty? Then taking it a step further, if the intruder dies in the hospital, does that change things?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 09:23 PM |
|
|
The problem here is clearly the way the US handles the ownership of guns.
If you do not expect someone to have a gun, you don't have one either. As simple as that. And it can be proven!
The argument I often here from americans "The bad guys will always get a gun, no matter if they are forbidden or not, so I want my gun too!" is completely nonsense.
Just try to find statistics of western european countries, where they tell you how many people died (got shot!) in their home due to a burglar. Close to zero I assume.... But there are many bad guys in Germany or England or France too
And there are restrictions refering to weapons here.
The main point for me is "principle of proportionality". This gets completely out of control by carrying a gun. A burglar gets killed by a house owner. If this would be justified, then it would be as well justified a burglar who gets caught breaking into an EMPTY house recieves death penalty.
Burglar --> DEATH
But I am pretty sure the american law system would NOT allow death penalty for the second case --> "principle of proportionality"!!
But this would probably go too far off topic now.....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 09:23 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 21:26, 28 Apr 2011.
|
|
I guess human beings have brains for a purpose. Shooting at people on sight is self-defense as much as planting mines around your house and installing automatic machine guns which shoot at anyone who crosses the perimeter borders. The Christian God has to be a complete moron if he can not make a difference between this and killing for self-defense when you are out of options. Moreover, the latter is pretty clear that he's the only one who is allowed to kill.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 10:26 PM |
|
|
Moving into the "gun assault further":
I agree with Angelito. In Poland, we pretty much never have those kinds of incidents. If someone robs a house, he does it when he's certain nobody's home. I watch news carefully, and for the last few years I have not even heard of a robery that was paired with armed assault.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 10:36 PM |
|
|
@Angel:
Your response kind or did a 180 to what I was asking, but trends don't match up to what you're saying about gun regulations. Before I start with that, you should know that the U.S. does do background checks on gun purchases. You don't just buy them from a firearm vending machine (even though that would be ****ing epic).
Violent crime isn't a problem in the USA per se; it's a problem in the western hemisphere. Even Canada is notably more violent than non-British W. Europe, and even USA's violent crime is tame compared to central & south America. Mexico and several other Latin American countries have very strict gun regulations and they are drowning in violence. The UK has very strict gun laws and their violent crime and homicide is annually increasing again and again, while places like Norway and Switzerland have a huge number of rifles and yet have much lower rates of violent crime than the UK. Germany has less stringent gun regulations than the UK and also has lower violent crime.
My purpose isn't to argue about gun regulations. I care little about the issue. N. Africa also has very lower violent crime (excluding the recent politically-related violence) and those countries have strict gun regulations. What the trends show is that gun regulations don't seem to have a profound impact either way. If it was that mind-numbingly simple I would orgasm. The violence in the W. Hemisphere and in the USA is a deeply rooted issue grounded in culture, a lack of hegemony, and the drug market. Fortunately violent crime in the US peaked in the mid 90s and has been steadily decreasing since then. Hopefully it will keep lowering. Europe (for the moment) & the M.E. have low violent crime rates despite having a scattering of different gun laws.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
