I invite you to answer your own questions.

You are new to the forum so you might not know that I'm totally being facetious.

http://sntjohnny.com/front/the-amish-and-original-sin/21.html

I thought the post would be ridiculous on its face, so obviously ridiculous that even a liberal idealist could grasp it... the guy should have been stopped at the door... well he shot a cop on the steps.... the law didn't keep him from coming into the court house so what good would be a law outlawing guns altogether.... how wonderful that they at least had chairs to combat an active shooter!  Chairs, praise God, chairs!  But not guns, because those are dangerous!

heh heh heh

You were worried about me for a minute weren't ya :)

I thought the post would be ridiculous on its face, so obviously ridiculous that even a liberal idealist could grasp it... the guy should have been stopped at the door... well he shot a cop on the steps.... the law didn't keep him from coming into the court house so what good would be a law outlawing guns altogether.... how wonderful that they at least had chairs to combat an active shooter!  Chairs, praise God, chairs!  But not guns, because those are dangerous!

heh heh heh

You were worried about me for a minute weren't ya :)

heh heh heh. After several long conversations with a British friend who insists the removal of guns prevents gun violence and school shootings (though admits it doesn't stop violence in the general sense), I may be a little quick to see an arguement that isn't there.

I've met Dannyboy, and he isn't untypical of Europeans.  They just don't get it.  We Americans are in a position to know far more than they do about guns and violence, and they keep coming up with this ridiculous idea that strict gun control laws somehow control violence.  How can we get them to listen to us?  I point out that inanimate objects don't go around killing people.  A person determined to kill will just use whatever else is handy--say a chair.  Should we ban chairs?!??  Why, no.  What a stupid, ridiculous idea.  Why would anyone blame the inanimate object for violence?

Now, WE know what we are talking about.  We have some of the highest rates of violence and death in the world, and we know WHY we have those rates of violence.  It's simple:  gun control laws.  Too many citizens are unarmed, and that just invites the criminals to come after them.  If we eliminated all gun control laws, made sure that everyone was properly armed, and let honest, law-abiding citizens walk around with their guns in plain sight, any fool can see that we would have a violence-free society.  We know this, in part, because the great science fiction author and philosopher, Robert Heinlein, pointed out that an ARMED society is a POLITE society.  And didn't the Beattles once have a song with the lyric "Happiness is a warm gun"?  And they were even Europeans.

The problem with Europeans, Canadians, Asians, and other foreigners is that they are sitting on a time bomb ready to explode.  Their rates of violence are extremely low now--sure--but that is all bound to change, because those fools all have strict gun laws that are just turning them all into walking targets.  Soon, it will be too late, and the criminals will pounce on them all and just slaughter them.  This idea that gun control protects people is just sheer lunacy.  Why won't they listen to people who come from a society that has experienced such high levels of violence as us?  Don't they realize that we are the ones best able to advise them on the evil nature of gun control laws?

Well said, EB.

My hat's off to Copernicus whose facetious post was perfect. 

I have had this convo with DB on the forum.  I don't quite recall having it with him in person.  Next time!

EB's point here requires explanation, Cop.  You've actually got restrictions on guns here.  Many have been in place for decades.  It is only in the last decade or so that there was an overwhelming turn to allow people to carry concealed weapons (48 out of the 50 states, I believe... presumably because the second amendment is just so ambiguous  ).  It has been documented in a number of instances that certain forms of crime decreased when concealed weapons were permitted.

A point I would like to add is that in England it may be true that murder rates are down, but assault and battery rates are up.  Of course they would be up.  When you have instances like the one where the farmer shoots and kills the robber who had broke into his house ("That was supposed to be for hunting, feller!") and the farmer gets arrested, thugs quickly get the message that it is open season.

Quick anecdote.  While I was in France we went out for a late night stroll to play some frisbee.  Our friend (French speaking, but from some Soviet breakaway) had a companion along with to play who was from France.  I was with one of my buddies at the academy.  Our friend led us to the estate/park of Napolean's wife.  It was at least 11 p.m., so quite dark.  There were all sorts of people out and about on the park grounds.  I couldn't help but remark to our guides that heading out into most parks in America at this time of the night was asking for trouble.

The French young man laughed and said something to the effect:  "Yes, of course.  People are always being robbed and murdered, are they not?  You see, here in France, we have laws against murder."

I remember laughing but not sure if we talked.  I only had just met that man that evening.  Isn't it interesting, though, that he thought the US didn't have laws against murder and this is why there was so much crime?  Of course we have laws against murder.  Yet they still happen, just as they surely happen in all places in the world.  Isn't it self-evident that the only person who finds the law to be an obstacle or guide to behavior is the one who is law-abiding? 

I find the logic irresistable:  if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them.

Cop?

Oh well, if i'm invited...  

End Bringer, you point to a correlation between an increase in violent gun crime and an increase in restrictive gun legislation.  Correlation does not, of course equal causation.  i would suggest that it would be more helpful to look at any change in the proportion of illegal vs legal guns being used in violent crime, as this would give a better indicator of whether, as you propose, legal restrictions on owning guns are actually a problem.  If more and more of the weapons used to kill innocent bystanders were shown to be illegal then your point might have a little more substance.  If on the other hand, legal guns (even if used for illegal activity) are still a major factor then it would seem clear that the restrictions you decry are having little or no effect.

Regarding your assertion that a decrease in the Judeo-Christian ethic is at the root of increasing violence, then i think it would be helpful to remember that America remains one of the most religious countries in the western world.  A comparison with more secular European countries (i.e. all of them) and their respective rates of violent crime might be helpful.  Also you could examine the state by state figures - i dont have the statistics to hand, but as i recall there is a rough correlation between rates of violent crime and how overtly religious a US state is.  Again, correlation does not equal causation, but that would undermine your idea that secular values are to blame.

SntJohnny, you're a funny man - gosh i almost laughed.    You're right of course, we have less gun crime in the UK but we do have samuri sword crime - perhaps we should all be allowed to carry one.  

Cop, lol thanks.

So when you abandon the Judeo-Christian ethic, what replaces it? Sociopathy.

That is utterly and completely absurd.  Our modern ideas about human rights and value have extraordinarily little to do with so called "Judeo-Christian ethic" and a great deal more to do with the humanistic movements that really first became popular during the Enlightenment, and have recurred since, most notably after WWII with the creation and expansion of the United Nations. 

I will tell you that my ethics are in no way influenced by "Judeo-Christian" beliefs.  Not at all.  Well, perhaps a little, as little as is inevitable as a member of a so-called "Judeo-Christian" society. 

Does that scare you?  It really shouldn't.  The only crime I have really ever committed is stealing a candy bar when I was five, and I don't even remember it.  Am I a Sociopath?  I certainly don't think so, at least not more so than anybody else. 

I am largely influenced by Hobbesian Social Contract Theory.  The primary reason for my abiding by the law is because the law protects me as much as it protects everyone else, and to violate it is to undermine my protection.  That extends far beyond merely abiding by the law.  It extends into "Civic Duty".  I recycle aluminum, I pick up litter when I see it.  All for my benefit.  Recycling aluminum saves energy which keeps energy prices down.  The less litter there is, the nicer the view I have.  The fact that these things also benefit the community are secondary. 

You could say that what I am talking about is the "Judeo-Christian" Golden Rule, thus I am merely following your "Judeo-Christian" ethics.  Well, maybe, except that the so-called Golden Rule is extremely common concept.  It wasn't originally and certainly isn't exclusively the beholder of the idea.  Master K'ung espoused it probably around the same time as it developed in the West.  In fact, that idea of Social Contract is central to Confucianism.  Confucianism, while it has religious aspects, is primarily a humanistic movement.  As collectivist as it is, it too is ultimately based on interest in the self.  One devotes oneself to the community because a strong community brings prosperity and protection to you as well, as a member of the community.

You might argue that if you take this arguement far enough you end up with "Amorality" where you take and take and take because it is certainly in your best interest to do so.  I would argue that goes beyond reasonable selfishness and well into narcissism.  What if everyone acted like that?  Chaos, not any kind of a world I would want to live in.  Therefore, in being a model citizen, I also encourage others to do the same which is certainly more in my, and perhaps more importantly, my children's interest. 


Yes, this is a complicated view of morality, which is why most people still need an angry God to keep them in line.  Regardless of whether God exists or not, I firmly believe that I do not need Him or his Laws to define my ethics. 

And about Guns, no they shouldn't be banned.  Yes, they should be reasonably restricted.  I am fairly happy with the American status quo. 

That is utterly and completely absurd.  Our modern ideas about human rights and value have extraordinarily little to do with so called "Judeo-Christian ethic" and a great deal more to do with the humanistic movements that really first became popular during the Enlightenment, and have recurred since, most notably after WWII with the creation and expansion of the United Nations. 

Not really. As our Founding Fathers and early society were either Christians (and some of the most strict minded Christians at that) or if not Christians outright were still heavily influenced by Judeo-Christianity. WWII was a sign of how human reason alone failed, due to how such evil (there's no other word for it) acts were carried out with incredible rationalization.

I will tell you that my ethics are in no way influenced by "Judeo-Christian" beliefs.  Not at all.  Well, perhaps a little, as little as is inevitable as a member of a so-called "Judeo-Christian" society. 

Problably more than you just care to admit. I find many atheists argue loudly, but quietly concede that there's more to what we have to say in practice.

Does that scare you?  It really shouldn't.  The only crime I have really ever committed is stealing a candy bar when I was five, and I don't even remember it.  Am I a Sociopath?  I certainly don't think so, at least not more so than anybody else. 

No, it doesn't surprise me in the least. Many atheists recoil at social Darwinism, even while arguing that human beings are equal to animals and no more significant in the cosmic scheme of things than bacteria. And the question to that is always, why? If we are animals why shouldn't we act like animals to kill, rape, and eat each other? It seems to work for every other member of the animal kingdom.

It's always facinating to see atheists argue a moral framework when atheism has no objective standard to claim moral values. As such sociopathy is just the logical conclusion. That I see the ever increase of such behavior is no surprise when it is implicit in such arguements. That I see that the arguement's logical and inevitable conclusion is strongly denied by those such as yourself is no surprise either, because if it were explicit it would reveal such arguements as more foolish than they already are. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

I am largely influenced by Hobbesian Social Contract Theory.  The primary reason for my abiding by the law is because the law protects me as much as it protects everyone else, and to violate it is to undermine my protection.  That extends far beyond merely abiding by the law.  It extends into "Civic Duty".  I recycle aluminum, I pick up litter when I see it.  All for my benefit.  Recycling aluminum saves energy which keeps energy prices down.  The less litter there is, the nicer the view I have.  The fact that these things also benefit the community are secondary. 

"I should be selfless in order to be more selfish. Therefore we ought to be selfish." Also known as 'monkey morality'- I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish. It's a very evolutionistic approach to morality that fails for a varity of reasons. One of them being how obviously silly it is. Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness but rather for altruisim or at least morality entails it. So I'm afraid your promotion of selfishness really isn't a step above a sociopath at all.

You could say that what I am talking about is the "Judeo-Christian" Golden Rule, thus I am merely following your "Judeo-Christian" ethics.  Well, maybe, except that the so-called Golden Rule is extremely common concept.  It wasn't originally and certainly isn't exclusively the beholder of the idea.  Master K'ung espoused it probably around the same time as it developed in the West.  In fact, that idea of Social Contract is central to Confucianism.  Confucianism, while it has religious aspects, is primarily a humanistic movement.  As collectivist as it is, it too is ultimately based on interest in the self.  One devotes oneself to the community because a strong community brings prosperity and protection to you as well, as a member of the community.

Not really. Many have claimed Christ was quoting Confucious, but in reality he was quoting Leviticus 19:18 "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." Such claims often go into the issue of whether the Bible is plagarized from other religions. More often than not it's a case 'who influenced whom?'

As said above your views entail some self-contradictions about being unselfish in order to be selfish. The Golden Rule doesn't say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, as long as it serves your interests." Also it isn't the same for another reason why the evolutionistic morality doesn't work. It reduces morality to simply behavior. True morality entails non-behavioral elements, too, like intent and motive. We distinguish between an act done by accident and the very same act done on purpose.  The behavior is the same, but the intent is different.  We don't usually blame people for accidents:  The boy didn't intend to trip the old lady. We also give attention to the issue of motive.  We withhold blame even if the youngster tripped the old lady on purpose if the motive is acceptable:  He tripped her to keep her from running in front of a train.

In fact, I would say your "good" behavior may indeed be far from it. Some "good" behavior--giving  to the poor, for example--might turn out to be tainted if the motive and intent are wrong:  being thought well of with no concern for the recipient.  Indeed, it seems one can be immoral without any behavior at all, e.g. plotting an evil deed that one never has the opportunity to carry out.  

You might argue that if you take this arguement far enough you end up with "Amorality" where you take and take and take because it is certainly in your best interest to do so.  I would argue that goes beyond reasonable selfishness and well into narcissism.  What if everyone acted like that?  Chaos, not any kind of a world I would want to live in.  Therefore, in being a model citizen, I also encourage others to do the same which is certainly more in my, and perhaps more importantly, my children's interest. 

I would argue your current level of selfishness isn't at all reasonable. And what if everyone acted like narcisists? Hobbes may have been right that we aren't compelled to adopt the law of the jungle but under atheism we are certainly allowed to and it again seems to work for every other animal if we are animals. The exploitation of the weak by the strong is morally benign according to such views.

Why ought I be moral tommorrow? The evolutionary answer might be that when we're selfish, we hurt the group.  That answer, though, presumes another moral value:  We ought to be concerned about the welfare of the group.  Why should that concern us?  Answer:  If the group doesn't survive, then the species doesn't survive.  But why should I care about the survival of the species? Answer: Because it's better for me. Monkey morality.

Yes, this is a complicated view of morality, which is why most people still need an angry God to keep them in line.  Regardless of whether God exists or not, I firmly believe that I do not need Him or his Laws to define my ethics. 

Much like a sociopath believes he doesn't need society or it's laws to define his ethics. I'm sorry, what were you saying about not being a sociopath again?

And about Guns, no they shouldn't be banned.  Yes, they should be reasonably restricted.  I am fairly happy with the American status quo. 

Seems the only thing we agree on is that they shouldn't be banned.

Well yes, but you also said, "the whole increase-in-restriction-increase-in-violence thing should be a pretty big clue that more of the same actions don't solve such problems".

Yes. Was there something about "does not solve such probelms" that confused you?

To extend that point of view, i could suggest that restrictions on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by private citizens are obviously counter-productive, or at least not helpful.  If, as you say, people are the only variable, then why should we put restrictions on any of the devices they can kill people with?  Perhaps there are some good reasons for not letting just anyone possess such deadly weapons.

Excellent! Now we are shifting into disregard for the scale of person's being equiped with personal protection, and going into the whole shebang. I will assume it's reasonable to infer that you will now be advocating the disarmement of your country in it's entirety, correct? Perhaps there are some good reasons for not letting your country possess such deadly weapons, right? Or perhaps there are some very good reasons for having such weapons, and thus perhaps those same reasons can be applied to citizens.

Ok, thank you for clarifying.  If i can make an analogy here, if a zoo-keeper was constructing an enclosure for the elephants but could only afford to erect 50cm high fencing, when they escaped would he be justified in concluding that fences do little or no could in containing elephants?  To put it another way, if that VTech guy Cho could legally obtain a semi-automatic weapon to shoot up a university, then perhaps the 'restrictive' gun laws aren't even restrictive enough to be a factor.

Are you trying to say weapons have no way of being "illegally" obtained? I'll have to remember that next time I'm in New York. Or we can admit that when someone wants to commit a crime they're going to fine a way to do it. Much like how I've tried regular and invisible fences on my dog, and she always found a way to break out, or just ignored the pain. Or to further go into your analogy, all a tiger needs to do is find a way into that enclosure and the elephant finds itself trapped and about to be devoured.

Again regarding your assertion that decreasing religiousity is at the root of violent crime, how do you explain the lower rates of it in more secular countries?

You mean assault, battery, theft, and rape isn't up? Or is it left out of the statistics if they're let off on a caution? Or are Shirley Best incidents simply not regarded as crimes since people didn't defend themselves? So yeah, I can give a reason why crime rates are down. They're ignored to preserve this "crime free" illusion.

Well you certainly have defined yourself a nice get-out clause there.  So since killing and injuring people is illegal, i presume that you consider ALL guns used in violent crime to be 'illegal weapons'?  Bottom line, there are people out there in any country who are prepared to do things like this, the question is - how easy is it for them to acquire the tools for the job (and yes, i know that it is possible to kill with a car or a chair or a pen, but not, i would suggest, as easy or as perceivedly 'cool' as it is to kill with a semi-automatic).  In the UK, the answer would be quite difficult - you would either have to go through rigorous testing and training OR use criminal channels to get hold of a semi-automatic here.  In the US, apparently, you can legally purchase one without too much trouble.  That's a major difference.

Aww so we are agreed that if someone wants it, they'll find a way. Good that points cleared up. It's just those who plan to commit violent crimes that will fine themselves at a major advantage to those who abide the law and find themselves at a tremendous disadvantage. Or in the case of those tools that require physical exertion it will be the strong over the weak. Good to know.

So, if legally purchased guns (even though they are by definition being used illegally) are predominant in violent crime, that could lead us to the conclusion that maybe they shouldnt be so readily available.

Yes, it's much better for them to be available only to criminals or those actively planning crimes. Though tell me, how much more restrictive is buying guns now than it is for a car and alcohol?

i dont pretend to offer a solution to gun control in America - it would be patronising (i'm not American), and disingenuous because i dont have a solution.  Guns are so prevalent now that, as you say, banning them completely at this stage would not be productive.  What i am here to object to is the blinkered idea that guns are not the problem (or at least ONE of the problems) and the frankly loopy concept that the reason that Americans are much more likely to get shot in their classrooms, campuses and government buildings is because of a decline in the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Well that clarify's your position, but I find it much more objectionable to any idea that human beings aren't the MAIN problem, and the beliefs that guide their actions can't be contributing. You think facism wasn't a main causation for the Nazis?

Really.  Cant imagine this happening in the States: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1148669,00.html

You mean you're just now getting to that point, and still allow religious instruction in the schools? Maybe the reason you haven't quite reached our point is that you're simply behind us.

Ouch, well that's a separate discussion.  This may be me being European again, but personally i think that the classroom is where religion can do most harm.

Heh. Yes all those non-religious societies are the penicals of peace and prosperity. Oh wait, the gulogs and death camps again.

i'm assuming your point is that these men all caused enormous suffering and were non-religious?  That's a good point.  And it's just occured to me that they all had black hair too - maybe that's at the root of something.  Do you have black hair?

  Snide dismissal does not a rebuttal make. But I understand why you would make it. When one try's to look for every issue except the HUMAN one, secular humanisim and atheism aren't exactly excluded either.

'Martyred'?  Were they killed for their religious beliefs?

Yep. Though the issue of Cassie Bernall's martydom never happened (because of conflicting testimony on a confusing situation), there is less controversy in the case of Rachel Joy Scott, the first victim.  

Sure, if you could actually find any examples of such behaviour.

Seems for Rachel Joy Scott, I just did. Or are you saying there is no history of acts of violence against religious groups by Marxists and communists? I think the KGB may have roughed up a religious person or two.

Your understanding of 'secularist values' (and congratulations by the way on your impressive condensing of that diverse and loosely associated group of beliefs down into a single anarchist strawman) is obviously open to question here.  You are quite right when you say: "When there's hate people will find a way to justify it. The question is, which one actually fits within their teachings?".  We all know that the bible and the koran can be used to justify wanton slaughter.  So exactly which 'secularist' teachings are you refering to?

Anarchist strawman? I don't believe I have advocated secularism as wanting to remove all laws. Just the Higher Laws that really matter, since acknowledging a Higher Law means a Higher Law Maker. And I refer to all secularist teachings that advocate removal of religion from schools and government. As with your snide response above I find your "not secularism per se" approach unamusing, while we have religion ruthlessly attacked and suppressed in such instances. Seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" arguement.

You know, maybe if the Kurds did have some chemical and biological weapons, Hussein may have thought twice about trying to eradicate them. Something to think about.