| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dorsalia 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2006
Location: Cape Mola
Status: Offline
Points: 367
|
 Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:48 |
 akamaisondufromage wrote:
What has the Bible got to do with History?
|
Nothing, mate. Absolutely nothing. Neither do the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, Henry VIII or anything else.
Edited by Dorsalia - June 01 2010 at 13:41
|
|
"Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 12:52 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
I think it depends on how the film is used - if it's simply used as a substitute for actual teaching, then there certainly is an issue; if the film (or a section of it) is used to encourage students to engage with it and to explore and criticise or justify the opinions, then it's as valid as using a book or magazine article.
|
I agree. There is no right or wrong in terms of the material used in a classroom. What matters is how it's used. So to judge this particular case, we'd need to know more about what the teacher did with the film in the classroom.
|
Let someone use the Bible
in a public school setting
regardless of the context
and see what happens.
|
Same goes for the Bible. Of course it should be used, at least in high schools. It should be used in the study of history, literature, philosophy and politics, to say the least. It is one of the most important books in the history of our modern world and how you could conceive of giving someone an education without analysing the bible's impact is beyond me.
|
What has the Bible got to do with History?
Anyway I agree with the French in that there is no place for Religion in Schools (Possibly the study of ALL the different religions in RE) but if parents want there kids to study a religion of any type then they can do it outside school. (Church might be an appropriate place for example.
Keep the Bible out of schools. |
What has the Bible got to do with history? Seriously? 
It is arguably the most influential book of all time, whether you believe what it says is true or not.
|
|
|
|
clarke2001
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:05 |
clarke2001 wrote:
Robert, you're a bee?
|
I think I'm up to a C, now...I need to lose weight. 
|
|
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:08 |
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
This is like teaching Politics with a MM video (To a certain extent)
Edited by akamaisondufromage - June 01 2010 at 13:09
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:10 |
|
I've only seen Bowling for Columbine. I can't really remember his views on the gun issue, but after watching the travesty of an "interview" he pulled at the end of the film with Charleton Heston (which was really more of an amateurish, whiny, and pathetic attempt at character assassination) I seriously doubt he has any lick of decency, decorum, or honor. And he always has this smug ass expression on his face.
And I'm liberal.
|
|
|
|
Dorsalia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2006
Location: Cape Mola
Status: Offline
Points: 367
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:17 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
This is like teaching Politics with a MM video (To a certain extent) |
Of course the Koran is also important in the study of history. But whatever your viewpoint, nobody can deny that the religions the Bible has spawned have shaped our western tradition like nothing else after Greece and Rome. And anything can be used to indoctrinate, because there are ulterior motives behind everything to a certain extent. No, I think anything is acceptable in the classroom as long as it is used to generate discussion and stimulate individual thinking. Of course, in an ideal world....
Edited by Dorsalia - June 01 2010 at 13:19
|
|
"Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:18 |
|
Some of the time ... but usually his point of view is as biased as whatever he happens to be opposing, and I really don't like that he employs the same cheap tricks as the "enemy" to get people to agree with him.
|
|
Syzygy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 7003
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:34 |
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
What has the Bible got to do with History?
|
Nothing, mate. Absolutely nothing.
Neither do the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, Henry VIII or anything else.
|
Small point of order - I didn't make that comment. I suppose that the misquote was an understandable hazard of copying and pasting from a stack of quotes, but please be more careful in future.
The Bible has an integral place in Western culture and as such should be incoroporated into any sane academic curriculum; how it is used or abused in that context, and the way that fundamentalists of whatever stripe react to it, is another matter entirely.
|
|
'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'
Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom
|
|
Dorsalia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2006
Location: Cape Mola
Status: Offline
Points: 367
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 13:42 |
Syzygy wrote:
Small point of order - I didn't make that comment. I suppose that the misquote was an understandable hazard of copying and pasting from a stack of quotes, but please be more careful in future.
|
Sorry dude, my bad entirely. I already corrected it though. 
Edited by Dorsalia - June 01 2010 at 13:43
|
|
"Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
|
|
rpe9p
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2008
Location: Charlottesville
Status: Offline
Points: 485
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 19:51 |
|
There was no "very rarely" or "almost never" option, so I had to go with never. Has anyone here seen the movie "an american carol"? I thought some parts of that were really funny but I wouldnt recommend it unless you are a conservative or someone who wont take it seriously.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 19:59 |
Syzygy wrote:
Dorsalia wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
What has the Bible got to do with History?
|
Nothing, mate. Absolutely nothing.
Neither do the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, Henry VIII or anything else.
|
Small point of order - I didn't make that comment. I suppose that the misquote was an understandable hazard of copying and pasting from a stack of quotes, but please be more careful in future.
The Bible has an integral place in Western culture and as such should be incoroporated into any sane academic curriculum; how it is used or abused in that context, and the way that fundamentalists of whatever stripe react to it, is another matter entirely. |
Yeah, I guess I can get on board with that but only for understanding why such a large segment of the planet is absolutely nuts: Dr
Laura's
Gay Bible Letter
Either the Bible is right or it's not
On her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger
said
that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination
according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be
condoned
under any circumstances. The following response is an open
letter
to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which
was posted on the Internet:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate
people
regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from
your show,
and try to share that knowledge with as many
people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however,
regarding
some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may
possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring
nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to
Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into
slavery,
as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with
a
woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:
19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have
tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a
sacrifice,
I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working
on
the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be
put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or
should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though
eating
shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not
approach the
altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.
I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses.
Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair
trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27.
How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching
the skin
of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear
gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He
violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as
does his wife
by wearing garments made of two different
kinds
of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot.
Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a
private
family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?
(Lev.
20:14)
I know you have studied these things
extensively
and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident
you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's
word
is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman , Ed.D. Professor
Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of
Virginia
This came up about ten years ago (It
remember
it was pre-9-11) when it was on The West Wing.
President Bartlet threw some harpy out of
his White House for being so Schlessinger-ish.
To see the REAL Laura Schlessinger, Click
Here
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:05 |
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
 Okay, cool. I look foreard to debating with you. |
Okay, so here-a we go (pun intended):
It's true that countries with gun control have far less gun-related crime than those that don't. For example: Gun Deaths - International Comparisons Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): | | Homicide | Suicide | Other (inc Accident) | | | | | | | USA (2001) | 3.98 | 5.92 | 0.36 | | Italy (1997) | 0.81 | 1.1 | 0.07 | | Switzerland (1998) | 0.50 | 5.8 | 0.10 | | Canada (2002) | 0.4 | 2.0 | 0.04 | | Finland (2003) | 0.35 | 4.45 | 0.10 | | Australia (2001) | 0.24 | 1.34 | 0.10 | | France (2001) | 0.21 | 3.4 | 0.49 | | England/Wales (2002) | 0.15 | 0.2 | 0.03 | | Scotland (2002) | 0.06 | 0.2 | 0.02 | | Japan (2002) | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0 |
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
According to these statistics, the U.S. has nearly 10 times more gun-related homicides than Canada (which, if I'm not mistaken, has more guns per capita than the U.S.), 27 times more gun-related homicides than England and Wales, 66 times more than Scotland, and 200 times more than Japan (to be fair, I don't think Japan was ever steeped in gun control like Western civilizations are.) Clearly, guns have some role in the equation. I'm not asking for the outright banning of guns, like some of the countries in that chart do, but I don't think that any psychopathic lunatic should be able to get his hands on a gun. If there were stricter firearm laws for the U.S., I'm sure that your "how am I supposed to defend myself from an armed criminal" situation would be very less likely. And since I'm assuming that you are a stable person, the process of getting a gun license in Canada does not seem very difficult, and the extensive background checks and restricting activities to hunting and other sports have proven to be very effective. |
Okay, here's the thing, though . . . ''any psychopathic lunatic'' WILL get his hands on a gun regardless of what the laws say. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. Now, if you can give me a logical explanation for how we are supposed to keep the crooks from illegally obtaining a gun, then I might be more on your side. However, we both know that isn't possible. If someone has vicious intent he will either a) Get a gun anyway, regardless of law, or b) Find some other means besides a gun to wreak his havoc. Telling the law-abiding citizens they can't own guns merely makes the odds that much more uneven. Even if the country would 100% outlaw guns, it wouldn't matter, because the criminals would smuggle them in somehow. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the right to legally even my odds against crooks than simply trust them to do the right thing. Now, another argument commonly made from your side of things is the stats showing the ratio between the amount of children accidentally killed by gunfire and the amount of burglars killed by gunfire. On its face, the numbers are considerably more high in child deaths, so that can seem pretty alarming. But take this into account: what that count does NOT include is the amount of burglars that were scared away or wounded by the guns but didn't die. That count is much, much higher than you might expect, also. If the families in those equations hadn't had guns in the house, they could have been robbed and/or killed, and even more innocent people would have died. In the end, it comes down to this: people are going to kill others no matter what, and banning the current weapon of choice only means that innocent people can't own guns to defend themselves with, and the crooks can continue to break the law and buy guns illegally. Yes, kids would no longer be in danger of accidentally dying by their parents' guns, but more people on the whole would be in danger of dying defenselessly as well. P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
Edited by JLocke - June 01 2010 at 20:11
|
|
Dorsalia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2006
Location: Cape Mola
Status: Offline
Points: 367
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:23 |
|
It's not about banning guns, it's about educating minds. The guns per se aren't the problem, it's the ignorant trigger-happy morons who tend to wield them.
And, on the other hand, I think you can understand me for not wanting to go into a bar in Arizona anywhere in the near future.
Edited by Dorsalia - June 01 2010 at 20:24
|
|
"Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:45 |
JLocke wrote:
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
|
From last month's debate:
Epignosis wrote:
According to this source, the US ranks 24th (highest murder
rate), the UK ranks 46th, but my word, Switzerland ranks 56th, and gun
acquisition there as I understand it is quite easy (especially if it is a
private sale). With a population of just over 7.6 million, it's
estimated that there are well over a million firearms (possibly over two
million) in private homes alone. Is it possible their homicide rate is
so low because young Swiss men are expected to train for the militia at
age 20 and remain in a reserve capacity until 30, and that they are
required to bear arms?
In other words, it isn't the guns,
it's something very cultural.
|
Edited by Epignosis - June 01 2010 at 20:45
|
|
|
|
UndercoverBoy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 10 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 5148
|
Posted: June 01 2010 at 20:50 |
JLocke wrote:
Okay, here's the thing, though . . . ''any psychopathic lunatic'' WILL get his hands on a gun regardless of what the laws say. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. Now, if you can give me a logical explanation for how we are supposed to keep the crooks from illegally obtaining a gun, then I might be more on your side. However, we both know that isn't possible. If someone has vicious intent he will either a) Get a gun anyway, regardless of law, or b) Find some other means besides a gun to wreak his havoc. |
Criminals are still much more likely to get their hands on a gun when there isn't any law compared to when there is one. I know I shouldn't put my faith in that one statistic, but I have found other statistics on the Internet that all show that the U.S. still has way more gun-related homicides when compared to other countries. Can you prove to me that the law is just as ineffective as no law? From what I've seen, that clearly isn't the case. I've heard about other alternatives to guns, like the knife crimes in the UK. Still, while these acts of violence are terrible, they don't compare to the amount of death caused by guns in the U.S.
| Telling the law-abiding citizens they can't own guns merely makes the odds that much more uneven. Even if the country would 100% outlaw guns, it wouldn't matter, because the criminals would smuggle them in somehow. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the right to legally even my odds against crooks than simply trust them to do the right thing. |
Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law, because it doesn't seem that way to me. You rely more on common beliefs (dare I say dogma?) rather than actual facts on the subject of guns. Personally, I would rather go through the process of getting a license than to trust all gun owners to do the right thing.
| Now, another argument commonly made from your side of things is the stats showing the ratio between the amount of children accidentally killed by gunfire and the amount of burglars killed by gunfire. On its face, the numbers are considerably more high in child deaths, so that can seem pretty alarming. But take this into account: what that count does NOT include is the amount of burglars that were scared away or wounded by the guns but didn't die. That count is much, much higher than you might expect, also. If the families in those equations hadn't had guns in the house, they could have been robbed and/or killed, and even more innocent people would have died. |
I've never heard of any cases where a family had to protect themselves from an armed criminal with a gun. Maybe these stories don't get reported, but in most countries with some form of gun control, burglars are much less likely to get their hands on a gun. Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim, certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using a weapon to kill.
| In the end, it comes down to this: people are going to kill others no matter what, and banning the current weapon of choice only means that innocent people can't own guns to defend themselves with, and the crooks can continue to break the law and buy guns illegally. Yes, kids would no longer be in danger of accidentally dying by their parents' guns, but more people on the whole would be in danger of dying defenselessly as well. |
People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lessen the chances.
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
|
Well, you are right here. Even if we did have stricter gun laws, I do realize that we will still have higher rates of gun-related crimes compared to the more peace-loving countries because the U.S. is steeped in gun culture. Still, these statistics are too big to ignore. 10x? 26x? Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's not the only factor.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 02 2010 at 06:23 |
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Okay, here's the thing, though . . . ''any psychopathic lunatic'' WILL get his hands on a gun regardless of what the laws say. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. Now, if you can give me a logical explanation for how we are supposed to keep the crooks from illegally obtaining a gun, then I might be more on your side. However, we both know that isn't possible. If someone has vicious intent he will either a) Get a gun anyway, regardless of law, or b) Find some other means besides a gun to wreak his havoc. |
Criminals are still much more likely to get their hands on a gun when there isn't any law compared to when there is one. I know I shouldn't put my faith in that one statistic, but I have found other statistics on the Internet that all show that the U.S. still has way more gun-related homicides when compared to other countries. Can you prove to me that the law is just as ineffective as no law? From what I've seen, that clearly isn't the case. I've heard about other alternatives to guns, like the knife crimes in the UK. Still, while these acts of violence are terrible, they don't compare to the amount of death caused by guns in the U.S.
| Telling the law-abiding citizens they can't own guns merely makes the odds that much more uneven. Even if the country would 100% outlaw guns, it wouldn't matter, because the criminals would smuggle them in somehow. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the right to legally even my odds against crooks than simply trust them to do the right thing. |
Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law, because it doesn't seem that way to me. You rely more on common beliefs (dare I say dogma?) rather than actual facts on the subject of guns. Personally, I would rather go through the process of getting a license than to trust all gun owners to do the right thing.
| Now, another argument commonly made from your side of things is the stats showing the ratio between the amount of children accidentally killed by gunfire and the amount of burglars killed by gunfire. On its face, the numbers are considerably more high in child deaths, so that can seem pretty alarming. But take this into account: what that count does NOT include is the amount of burglars that were scared away or wounded by the guns but didn't die. That count is much, much higher than you might expect, also. If the families in those equations hadn't had guns in the house, they could have been robbed and/or killed, and even more innocent people would have died. |
I've never heard of any cases where a family had to protect themselves from an armed criminal with a gun. Maybe these stories don't get reported, but in most countries with some form of gun control, burglars are much less likely to get their hands on a gun. Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim, certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using a weapon to kill.
| In the end, it comes down to this: people are going to kill others no matter what, and banning the current weapon of choice only means that innocent people can't own guns to defend themselves with, and the crooks can continue to break the law and buy guns illegally. Yes, kids would no longer be in danger of accidentally dying by their parents' guns, but more people on the whole would be in danger of dying defenselessly as well. |
People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lessen the chances.
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
|
Well, you are right here. Even if we did have stricter gun laws, I do realize that we will still have higher rates of gun-related crimes compared to the more peace-loving countries because the U.S. is steeped in gun culture. Still, these statistics are too big to ignore. 10x? 26x? Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's not the only factor. |
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive."People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me." Here.
|
|
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:09 |
Epignosis wrote:
UndercoverBoy wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Okay, here's the thing, though . . . ''any psychopathic lunatic'' WILL get his hands on a gun regardless of what the laws say. A criminal by definition is someone who breaks the law. Now, if you can give me a logical explanation for how we are supposed to keep the crooks from illegally obtaining a gun, then I might be more on your side. However, we both know that isn't possible. If someone has vicious intent he will either a) Get a gun anyway, regardless of law, or b) Find some other means besides a gun to wreak his havoc. |
Criminals are still much more likely to get their hands on a gun when there isn't any law compared to when there is one. I know I shouldn't put my faith in that one statistic, but I have found other statistics on the Internet that all show that the U.S. still has way more gun-related homicides when compared to other countries. Can you prove to me that the law is just as ineffective as no law? From what I've seen, that clearly isn't the case. I've heard about other alternatives to guns, like the knife crimes in the UK. Still, while these acts of violence are terrible, they don't compare to the amount of death caused by guns in the U.S.
| Telling the law-abiding citizens they can't own guns merely makes the odds that much more uneven. Even if the country would 100% outlaw guns, it wouldn't matter, because the criminals would smuggle them in somehow. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have the right to legally even my odds against crooks than simply trust them to do the right thing. |
Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law, because it doesn't seem that way to me. You rely more on common beliefs (dare I say dogma?) rather than actual facts on the subject of guns. Personally, I would rather go through the process of getting a license than to trust all gun owners to do the right thing.
| Now, another argument commonly made from your side of things is the stats showing the ratio between the amount of children accidentally killed by gunfire and the amount of burglars killed by gunfire. On its face, the numbers are considerably more high in child deaths, so that can seem pretty alarming. But take this into account: what that count does NOT include is the amount of burglars that were scared away or wounded by the guns but didn't die. That count is much, much higher than you might expect, also. If the families in those equations hadn't had guns in the house, they could have been robbed and/or killed, and even more innocent people would have died. |
I've never heard of any cases where a family had to protect themselves from an armed criminal with a gun. Maybe these stories don't get reported, but in most countries with some form of gun control, burglars are much less likely to get their hands on a gun. Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim, certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using a weapon to kill.
| In the end, it comes down to this: people are going to kill others no matter what, and banning the current weapon of choice only means that innocent people can't own guns to defend themselves with, and the crooks can continue to break the law and buy guns illegally. Yes, kids would no longer be in danger of accidentally dying by their parents' guns, but more people on the whole would be in danger of dying defenselessly as well. |
People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lessen the chances.
P.S. The more peace-loving countries you listed have less killings, by gun or otherwise, because the culture and attitudes are quite different from those of us living here in the USA. Correlation is NOT causation. Just because they happen to have stricter gun control laws doesn't necessarily mean that in and of itself is the reason for the lower crime rates. Crooks here have already tasted the glory of wielding guns, and they aren't gonna give that feeling up just because some bureaucrat tells them to. Just sayin'.
|
Well, you are right here. Even if we did have stricter gun laws, I do realize that we will still have higher rates of gun-related crimes compared to the more peace-loving countries because the U.S. is steeped in gun culture. Still, these statistics are too big to ignore. 10x? 26x? Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's not the only factor. |
You rely on statistics that do not prove what you are trying to prove. You look at the numbers and make assumptions about them. As I said in another post, the issue is American culture, not the availability of guns.
"Even if there was a rare case of an armed burglar vs. an unarmed victim,
certainly there are better ways of defending yourself rather than using
a weapon to kill." Like how? Telling the armed criminal a joke and hoping he laughs so hard he forgets why he was there? Give me a break. My dad had a gun pulled on him in our front yard when I was a little boy. I am thankful his assailant was too drunk to aim properly. I'll tell you what would deter burglars- every house having a weapon and peaceful citizens trained in its use.
When I chased down a purse-snatcher in 2008, the culprit ran into some old man's yard. The man living there promptly came out with a gun and fired into the air. That put an end to the chase until the police could arrive.
"People will kill each other no matter what, but that doesn't mean we
shouldn't lessen the chances." By this logic, we should ban automobiles.
"Loose gun laws clearly have a large role in this equation, even if it's
not the only factor." You've shown statistics, but you have not shown evidence backing up your interpretation of those statistics. So, to do what you have not:
"Again, prove to me that the law is as effective as the lack of a law,
because it doesn't seem that way to me."
Here.
|
Don't think I could have made a better response, Robert. 
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:25 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
|
The Bible is history written down by flawed men so you really have to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt. It is most certainly colored by the writers understanding of things and personal perspective, but it would be foolish to dismiss the whole thing as being a complete work of fiction, just as it is to consider it to be 100% accurate.
Edited by Slartibartfast - June 02 2010 at 10:30
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: June 02 2010 at 10:33 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Re: What has the Bible got to do with History?
Well you might have guessed I come from a nonbeliever back ground. I was joking to a certain extent - in that I don't believe any of it. Of course it has had an effect on History but why would you need a copy in your classroom if your teaching history and if you do where is your copy of The Koran and every other important religious book?
|
The Bible is history written down by flawed men so you really have to take it all with the proverbial grain of salt. It is most certainly colored by the writers understanding of things and personal perspective, but it would be foolish to dismiss the whole thing as being a complete work of fiction.
|
The majority of major events that take place in The Bible have absolutely no other historical records outside of the religious writings (The Exodus events, Tower of Babel, King David, etc.), so I don't see any reason at all why it should be presented as history. If you choose to believe in it, you're acting on faith, and nothing else. If you want your faith talked about in schools, ask for it in a theology class. Don't teach 'intelligent design' as science, and don't teach Noah's Ark as history.
Any historical facts that may cross over into The Bible already have their place in other documents and books, and of course will be taught from time to time, which is proper. But just because The Bible mixes its narrative with real places and events doesn't make The Bible itself credible enough to be considered 'history'. Spider-Man takes place in New York. Does that mean Peter Parker is real, and should be discussed in history class? Of course not.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Michael Moore
