Would 300 being shot shot in an incident lead to reform?

Forums: Legal, Politics, Guns
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Does the US need stricter gun laws? We ask that after every mass shooting. How large a mass shooting do we need before we address it? Would we finally address it if someone with a assault rifle goes berserk and shoots 300 people at a movie theater? (6, 50 round clips for the weapon)?

I am getting tired of our Congress and Presidential candidates being so afraid of the gun lobby that they won’t even mention reforming gun laws.

I am in a nursing home. I hope, tonight as I sleep, some crazy wanna-be-Rambo with an assault rifle, doesn’t come in to this place and kill all of us residents here. The solution is not to allow guns in here. I would be quite uneasy at night knowing my roommate has a gun or that any other resident here does.

We gotta find an answer!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 2,482 • Replies: 34

@hilbert,

Jesus said "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one"

Now I'm not a christain. But even I can grasp the simple concept of owning a gun for means of protecting, no gun law will stop criminals from illegaly obtaining guns. If the police carry weapons, so will the criminals. The civilians need them to protect themself from criminals. Even Jesus could grasp that concept. Not to mention the people who wrote up the constitutional bill of writes. I have the write to bare arms.

2 Replies

@MrIntegrity,

MrIntegrity wrote:

Jesus said "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one".

Could you please show me just where it's recorded that Jesus said this? I certainly can't find it in the Bible.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

I can not show you obvious reasons but you can find it in Luke 22:36.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

It's in Luke somewhere in the part about the Last Supper or later with him weeping in the garden. It's more like a 'There's gonna be trouble tonight, boys, who's got something to fight with." thing.

Somebody says they have two swords.

When they finally come to get him, one of his followers cuts off the ear of one the arresters, Jesus heals the ear and says "Hey, don't do any more of that."

Confusing.

It was the Wild East.

But Christ was most certainly not advocating for everyone to go out and get a weapon.

People should try reading the whole Bible and the whole stories and stop picking and choosing. Jesus was not a perfect guy, he got pissed off, he got bored, he was afraid to die, everything he said didn't always follow, but he tried to set a standard of human mercy, that's all.

50 round clips?? He'd say "Do not fall into temptation."

Joe(not bad for an atheist)Nation

3 Replies

@hilbert,

Ever wonder what weapon or device the disturbed individuals that resort to mass violence might use if they did not have access to guns. Assault weapons, poor choice,result in a low body count considering the number of targets, but will be considered for banning first. I really don t think that guns are the problem, people are the problem. People have been killing each other long before guns came along.

1 Reply

@hilbert,

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’b; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That is enough,” he replied.

0 Replies

@ZREX,

I stand corrected. Thank you, ZREX.

I was not familiar with that particular quotation. It sounds as though this is where Jesus is sending his disciples out to spread the word and advising them to be properly equipped for the journey. I'll have to read the whole chapter.

At any rate, I sure don't see this as advice for every Christian to arm him/herself.

1 Reply

@ZREX,

Quote:

Ever wonder what weapon or device the disturbed individuals that resort to mass violence might use if they did not have access to guns.

Yes, I do wonder. What device could they obtain that could injure 71 people but have little chance of them being questioned about buying the device or it's components? Buying the fertilizer to make a bomb the size of McVeigh's in Oklahoma City is almost impossible in this day and age. Farmerman has pointed that out before.

Quote:

People have been killing each other long before guns came along.

Until guns came along, a lone person wasn't killing dozens and injuring dozens more.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Joe Nation is correct. The statement comes during the Last Supper when Jesus is addressing his disciples about what is to come. Here's the full text of that part of the message (King James version) Luke 22:35-36:

Quote:

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.

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.

So it seems that what he is saying is, 'I took care of you all along; now you'll have to fend for yourselves.'

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

But he ends by telling them the 2 swords they have is enough so they don't need to buy more.

0 Replies

@MrIntegrity,

MrIntegrity wrote:

. . . I have the write to bare arms.

Me too. It's so much cooler in the summer.

0 Replies

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again your sword into its place:
for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Matthew 26:52

0 Replies

@hilbert,

Quote:

Would 300 being shot shot in an incident lead to reform?

I am getting tired of our Congress and Presidential candidates being so afraid of the gun lobby that they won’t even mention reforming gun laws.

The issue is that reforming gun laws is unlikely to get you any votes, whereas it IS likely to lose you votes.

So until the anti-gun lobby gets as many passionate members at the gun lobby, you can probably kiss goodbye to any significant change.

0 Replies

@hilbert,

hilbert wrote:

Does the US need stricter gun laws?

Wouldn't really hurt, wouldn't really help either though. That's one thing to keep in mind, gun laws have about as much as violent movies in terms of the degree of the affect they will have.

I'm fine with banning guns because their utility is negligible to society (despite most of the bad arguments for them) but I think it's also important to recognize that banning guns is not a silver bullet (no pun intended) and that banning violent movies might actually make more of an impact and you don't see many people advocating that.

This is a cultural problem that guns are a symptom of. Banning guns (if meaningfully enforced) will be a positive step, but it's important to keep in mind that it's just a tiny bit of attrition for these events it is not going to preclude them entirely (and also that how the events are talked about might make a bigger difference towards their recurrence, for that matter).

With that kind of perspective, and the knowledge that this culture just can't change (even if 300 are killed) in the next 10 years and you'll understand why I won't spend much energy advocating it.

Gun control is the right idea only because of the negligible utility of its converse position (arming the theater patrons is also not going to make them safer) but if preventing violence is your goal there are a lot of much more important things you should work on (e.g. economic issues or mere population density are much bigger factors in violence than are laws on what weapons the citizenry can carry to express it with).

Edit: carry on with the debate, needed a test post for read topic tracking testing and didn't want to post "test".

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

I found that passage from Luke a little confusing, like did my Christian roommate here in this nursing home since it seemed contrary to Jesus' philosophy. I sought an explanation of that verse in the commentary at

http://bibleexplained.com/Gospels/Luke/Lu22.htm#lu2231

There they that Jesus, on way to Gesemine, wasn't advocating violence, but was only chiding his disciples for harboring thoughts of violence in their hearts and not realizing all they needed was Christ in their hearts to be protected.

"Later the disciples could understand that Jesus was helping them know their own hearts".

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

He is chiding them for having thoughts of violence in their hearts and after his crucifixion, he'll still be with them.

Goodness, I am not a Christian, but I know quite well he didn't mean, "you're on your own" which is quite contrary to his message. He was saying that I am your protector, and will always be. Your hearts look to a sword, but all you need is me.

1 Reply

@hilbert,

hilbert wrote:

He is chiding them for having thoughts of violence in their hearts and after his crucifixion, he'll still be with them.

Goodness, I am not a Christian, but I know quite well he didn't mean, "you're on your own" which is quite contrary to his message. He was saying that I am your protector, and will always be. Your hearts look to a sword, but all you need is me.

I think both you and your Christian room-mate are dead wrong. But it would take me several pages of theological/historical exegesis to present that view. Perhaps "you're on your own" is not the right expression; but neither is "I am your protector and will always be." Jesus knew he would die on the cross. But, as the self-appointed Messiah, he also thought that his death would bring about the new Kingdom of God on this Earth. (In which case, of course, there would no longer be any need for swords, but that's another matter and beside the point.)

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Wouldn't really hurt, wouldn't really help either though. That's one thing to keep in mind, gun laws have about as much as violent movies in terms of the degree of the affect they will have.

In the short term, with such a large amount of firearms out there, that would probably be correct.

Australia had 5 notable massacres between 71 & 96 (not including a bikie shootout), with 4 of them between 87 & 96...but after Martin Bryant massacred 35 people at Port Arthur (in 96), and gun reform was implemented - no mass murders since.

The point of gun laws isn't to stop people from owning guns, but to keep them out of easy reach of known petty criminals (life time ones will always find a way to have one should they desire one) / mentally ill people/ suicidal people / and domestically violent people.

The point of not allowing semi-auto's is fairly obvious, and no civilian can provide a legitimate argument for owning them.

The point of gun reform may also be to change the culture. Cultures don't change overnight, and there is always resistance to change...even if the long term result will be positive.

1 Reply

Would 300 being shot shot in an incident lead to reform?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know