CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
As always, the Liberal gun control fanatics come out of the woodworks after any tragedy.
It's amazing these same hypocrites who like to drink never say a peep when many thousands more innocent people are killed by drunk drivers.
Do you here these hypocrites talking about bakground checks in the bar before handing out drinks, and thereby saving many lives from repeat DWI drivers? NAH! These hypocrites drink don't you know?
They don't want to be inconvienenced.
It is absoutely laughable that any intelligent thinking person would make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while criminals will not abide by any new laws or restrictions.
Let me say this very slowly for the hypocritical gun control fools.
The only reason Big Brother Government wants to take the people's guns, is so they can control the people. This is why guns are outlawed in dictatorships.
Stricter gun control laws DON'T WORK as we see in places like Chicago, but this of course is not about saving lives. This is about taking our guns.
These liars constanty say that their end goals are not to take our guns. ROFLOL
It's amazing these same hypocrites who like to drink never say a peep when many thousands more innocent people are killed by drunk drivers.
Actually I do. And so does the rest of society. Personally I think there should be stricter penalties for those idiots who choose to drink and drive. What with all the programs out there, some even give free rides to someone who drank to much at a bar, there is no excuse.
Now here is the difference that you should be able to see.
What is the purpose of a car? To get you from point A to point B.
What is the purpose of a gun? To kill.
That's it. That's the difference. We can't ban all cars because there are some (excuse the language) assholes who don't use it for it's intended purpose or who choose poorly and use it while intoxicated. The entire purpose of the gun is to kill, be it protection, hunting or for some nefarious purpose, it is meant to kill. To compare the two is like comparing apples to a phone. We use both but their purpose is very different.
Most people who want stricter gun control want it across the nation. Chicago may be one of the strictest cities for it but it means nothing if people can get them one city over. It must be a national thing, not just a city thing. And again, to spell it out, stricter gun control doesn't mean banning, so try to drop that comparison as well because it can't be spelled out any clearer. There needs to be mandatory classes if you are going to own a gun, there needs to be harsher penalties for those who are negligent with them, and loop holes need to be closed. Other than the idiotic suggestion of "let's give everyone a gun", I'm open to your own suggestions at what can be done because this whole doing nothing thing you've got going on isn't working.
To start with, I support firearm ownership because it is the ultimate equalizer.
I could be bigger than you, stronger than you, have greater skill and experience in violence, and that means little if you're able to pull out a handgun and put a bullet in center mass. It levels the playing field, so to speak. And it gives people the power to protect themselves and others in situations where that otherwise would not be possible. This is shown time and time again to happen far more often than our murder rate with firearms, even in studies performed by anti- gun advocates.
Yes, guns are often made to kill people. That's exactly why they're necessary.
But, I would like to address solutions. I cannot agree with you on imposing Chicago's limits on firearm ownership nationwide, for a multitude of reasons, most importantly I am not convinced it will work. It will, first and foremost, create a massive market vacuum that will be filled by the black market, which will come with its own collection of problems (and inevitably violence). For those who can't afford such black market weapons, the internet is their oyster. Did you know there is a small, almost perfectly flat island off of the coast of the continental united states that has only one bridge off of it, a tourist population at times exceeding one hundred thousand, and behind a few fences a ten thousand gallon tank of chlorine? I wonder how difficult it would be for one person to exploit that with a few IEDs, and how many people they could kill if they got smart and ditched their gun? Imagine if someone drove a truck bomb through the chain link fences surrounding a site where they store nuclear waste not too far from a certain city in the Midwest, on a day when the wind was just right to carry fallout in the wrong direction?
My ultimate point in that is, you can't stop every monster before they start. You just have to be as prepared as you can be, and hope it's enough. Which, in the case of mass shootings taking place in gun free zones, it often would have been enough to at least drop the body count, most likely to a point that it wouldn't even make the evening news (sad picture of our media in this day and age, but there you go.)
As far as mandatory classes: Yes! I absolutely agree. And they should be held in the public school curriculum, for the same reason that we have sex ed, that being: as much as you may not want to think about your kid having sex or firing a gun in their life, it's probably going to happen. They need to know how to do it safely so that they don't shoot a few loads into someone and either kill them or knock them up. But apart from learning the basics: if they learn it once, and don't want to respect it, putting them in the same class over and over again will do nothing. Some people just have to serve as an example to others.
Speaking of serving as an example to others, yes, I'm absolutely in favor of harsher penalties for negligence. But this needs further definition. I do think it's unreasonable to simply charge parents with negligence by default if their kid can access their gun. There have been plenty of cases where a kid has been able to defend a home with a gun when their parents weren't around, and plenty of kids that have been taught well to give proper respect to firearms. Of course, if there is a negligent discharge, and someone is hurt or property is damaged, then that is an entirely separate story.
But, mandatory classes and penalties for negligence really only cover accidents, which only kill about five to seven hundred people per year in the US (which is 5-7 hundred too many, obviously, but it is a relatively small number when compared to the murder rate, or any other accident rate that the CDC cares to subcategorize in its yearly death report.)
Now, I have to ask for clarification on "closing loopholes". I would assume you mean the supposed "gun show loophole". I would like to briefly explain this for the sake of dispelling common myths.
I cannot go to a gun show, in any state, and buy a gun without a background check from a licensed firearms dealer. If I buy from a licensed dealer, regardless of where the transaction takes place whether at a gun show, at a store, or anywhere else in America, a background check is required by federal law.
The "gun show loophole" applies to unlicensed individuals, who do not make a business of buying or selling firearms, selling from their personal collections. In some states, they can do so without a background check. Frankly, I would bet that this usually accounts for less than one percent of total sales at most gun shows. And it so rarely comes up in criminal reports that I don't think it's worth restricting law abiding citizens from performing transactions with their property as they please. But that's just my opinion.
To provide my own ideas: I suggest that we make gun safes a tax deductible purchase. This should be pretty easy to support on all sides. The result: access is limited to firearms for both kids and anyone who may intend to steal those guns.
Finally: Please, I actually want to hear a good counter argument to this. Why, why, why do we have gun free zones on public property? The worst mass shootings in the nation's history have consistently taken place in locations where people were unable to fire back. We need to get rid of these areas on public property- schools, military bases, post offices, parks, the list goes on (let business owners carry out their own policies at their discretion- and I do make the two exceptions of courthouses and police stations). When mass shootings do happen in these areas, I wholeheartedly guarantee that the people on that site who are unarmed do not care if whoever is able to return fire is wearing a badge or a uniform. After so many school shootings, how is it still acceptable to hang a sign outside of a building where we drop our kids off every day, that essentially reads "The occupants in this designated area have been rendered defenseless for the convenience of any passing psychopath"?
Hoping that we are able to come to some degree of an amicable meeting of minds. I look forward to your response.
First of all, thank you for your debate, this is a perfect example of doing it and I appreciate the opportunity to have a dialogue with you.
Yes, guns are often made to kill people.
That is the point I was trying to get across. It's not just limited to people, the sole purpose of the gun is to kill. Be it animal or human. Yes you can go into skeet practice but the very definition of kill is to "put an end to or cause the failure..."
If a person can't even admit that's what guns do then they will never get beyond any other steps.
I don't know enough about Chicago gun law to get into what they practice, mainly because their once strict gun laws were and are being stripped away by the NRA. This is an interesting article, I will point out the obvious though, it seems fairly one sided.
Here's were we are going to run into disagreement. We can't ban/police/restrict EVERYTHING that could be used as a weapon, that is both a waste of time and a waste of money. Pulling up other things that serve a different purpose but could be used to kill is a false analogy. Cars, chlorine, knives, whatever else a person mentions in their offhanded rebuke for better gun control just doesn't work. The only purpose of a gun is to kill, there is no other purpose. You don't cut meat with it, you don't use it to get from point A to point B (well...you could but it won't end well), and you don't chuck it in a pool to get rid of algae.
My ultimate point in that is, you can't stop every monster before they start.
I agree, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing to try to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. In this latest instance it's come out recently that there was an error made by the Air Force which allowed this (please excuse the language) asshole to buy firearms. There needs to be some severe repercussion on this. It seems as if any mistake done by anyone that allows people who are clearly unqualified to purchase firearms are just brushed aside with little to no liability for their negligence. Be it the Air Force or parents who don't practice proper gun safety, there needs to be harsh penalties when there are obvious instances of negligence.
I agree with your solution for mandatory classes. The first step towards reducing accidental shootings is to learn to handle and respect the weapon. If they can't handle the class with the respect it deserves then I also agree that should be their last chance until they grow up enough, perhaps if they wish to own a gun afterwards they will need to pay for the course. Open to other suggestions of course.
I suggest that we make gun safes a tax deductible purchase. This should be pretty easy to support on all sides. The result: access is limited to firearms for both kids and anyone who may intend to steal those guns.
That's a very good idea. Provide incentives for people to purchase a safe. Maybe we could go a step further and provide tax incentives for people who take gun safety courses every year?
Why, why, why do we have gun free zones on public property?
Because people, and I've covered this before, in general are stupid.
Honestly I think there should be armed security in schools, perhaps veterans who need a job and have been screened to be mentally capable of protecting our children.
Why, why, why do we have gun free zones on public property?
I don't want to be taking my children out to get some food and see some person with a gun hanging around. I don't know their state of mind, I don't know them and I'm not going to risk the lives of my children on some unknown potential threat. Of course you get some rabid gun enthusiasts, who I know don't speak for the majority, that walk around with their AK's strapped to their back and that don't have the common sense God gave a billie goat. A gun isn't an accessory or a statement on politics. Their own actions don't show the respect needed. On the flip side, if my father in law, my husband or myself carried one in public I would feel more at ease. But I know how we act and react, I don't know how strangers do. Maybe if we lived in a world where gun violence was less common I would be ok but not now.
Thank you for your debate, I'm curious if you have some other ideas.
Yes! Finally!! Civil disagreement and rational debate on the internet. Thank you for this. I am returning a message to let you know that I do not intend to waste this opportunity, as it happens so rarely, however for the next couple of days I will be extremely busy. I'm actually writing this from an aircraft carrier somewhere in the Atlantic. In an amount of time I am not at liberty to specify, we will be returning home, and in the meantime our schedules will be full and our internet limited. I hate to do this in the face of such a rare event as intelligent discussion, but I must beg your patience. I will respond in full when able.
No worries, sometimes it takes people time. Life is busy and debates are fun so take your time, I wish you safe journey and look forward to your discussion.
I greatly appreciate your patience- Back on shore, had my whiskey, had a double-bacon cheeseburger all the way, and I'm ready to get back to some good discussion.
Yes, guns are (for the most part) designed to kill people (whereas cars, ammonium nitrate, radioactive materials, chemicals, etc CAN be used to kill people- even more effectively than a firearm, with the right plan- but that's not their main purpose). But let's consider, that's a much broader purpose than people give it credit for. People say "The only purpose of an AR15 or handgun is to kill"- while this is untrue, I will agree that the MAIN purpose of an AR15 or handgun is to kill. That is not, however, the same as saying that "the only purpose of an AR15 is for some whack job to use it in a shooting spree to kill as many people as possible".
This is where I must provide explanation of why killing- or at least, the ability to do so- is often necessary and positive (what a cheery and seemingly insane statement!)
The first and most common example is self defense, and defense of others. Now, I know that I was the one to bring up the specific subject of the AR15- I do this because it is the weapon most commonly in dispute in these sorts of discussions of "it's only designed to kill". I would certainly like to hear your opinions on these weapons in particular.
When someone asks me how best to defend a home- and it does happen; I'm usually "the gun nut" of any group I find myself in- I always tell people that while the situation is different for everybody, the best weapon for home defense is a semiautomatic rifle, hands down. Shotguns and handguns will certainly work, but they do have their drawbacks- one of the biggest concerns over which to choose lies in how concerned you should be about bullets penetrating a wall and hitting someone behind. So I don't recommend rifles for apartments or condominiums, but I'm getting off topic.
I need you to perform a thought experiment now. In whatever condition you find yourself in the middle of the night- which is absolutely none of my business whatsoever- you hear someone breaking into your house.
I am of the opinion that, at the moment someone has violated the sanctity of your own home, whoever has broken in has surrendered any and all human rights. You have no time or obligation to determine how many of them there are or whether they are bigger or stronger than you or whether they are armed or what their intentions are. You have no time to grab clothes, or extra ammunition, and it's unlikely you would have the time to reload anyway. You need to get between them and your family, with whatever firepower is available to you- and in my particular case, if I need to run downstairs buck naked to fend off someone who's in my house unwelcome, a 30 or 50 or 100 round magazine is just another tool to put the odds in my favor. And believe me, as soon as I have identified a target in my house that isn't already throwing up their hands in surrender, I have absolutely no moral conflict with using as many of those bullets as it takes, even if it turns out after the fact that it was just some stupid kid that was acting on a dare. I'll feel bad about it later, but there's no way I can know that in the moment.
In other words, if I may be so crass: wake up motherfucker, it's time to kill.
(By the way, don't feel as if you need to excuse yourself for using the word "asshole" to describe someone who would kill innocent people. I'm in the Navy, my average compliment to someone would make my dear sweet grandmother's ears bleed. And my own words for describing such a person go far beyond "asshole".)
Believe it or not, this actually is a scenario that is far more common than our murder rate. Now, even I don't believe the NRA's position of "guns are used defensively 2.5 million times per year"- even I will concede that there are significant problems with how that data was collected; it's far from impartial. Unfortunately, this is such a divisive topic that it's difficult to find numbers that actually are impartial. As such, we have to take the NRA's numbers, and the numbers collected by anti- gun advocates, and figure that the truth lies somewhere in between. This leaves an enormous spread of where the truth may lie, but the numbers are quite telling.
In an extremely misleading report put out by the Violence Prevention Center called Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, it is greatly emphasized that in 2014 there were only 224 justified homicides in America involving a firearm as opposed to 7,670 criminal homicides in America involving a gun that same year. This is the main highlight, and they make a noticeable effort to ignore the cases where a gun was used to intimidate the perpetrator of a crime, whether or not the firearm was discharged, or if the perpetrator was injured but did not die. In other words, the study tried hard to conceal its true conclusion, that people with the intent to kill others actually kill people more often than people without that intention. Who knew?
However, somewhat buried in the report it also states that over a three year period- 2013, 2014, & 2015- there were 175,700 self protective behaviors involving a firearm. That's roughly 58,567 times per year, in numbers collected by anti gun advocates with clear biases, and it still dwarfs the murder rate. We can reasonably assume that the number lies between 58,567 and 2.5 million- even if we lean toward believing the VPC, they defeat themselves with their own numbers.
Backing up, to positive uses of firearms that involve killing. The second use is a deterrence against invasion. Is this outdated? I argue no. Obviously nobody wants to invade America. While our military has many inefficiencies, we unquestionably have the most capable military on the planet- this can be measured, quite simply, by the fact that we can park any one of eleven aircraft carriers off the coast of any country we want, and ask, "what are you going to do about it?". Portable air superiority- I cannot emphasize this enough- is one of the most important measures of a military's effectiveness, along with intelligence gathering. And we are the ones that have it.
However, even assuming our military was for whatever reason incapacitated, for instance the military industrial complex were to grind to a halt for the sake of collective sanity, a ground invasion of the United States would be suicide. There are three hundred million people in this country. Not all of them are capable of fighting, but most could, and many would either be lined up outside of a recruiting station or forming militias in the event of a ground invasion. If even one percent of Americans fought back against an invader, that would still be a force larger than China's current military. And arming every single one of those fighters would be absolutely no problem at all.
The third use is deterrence against government. Now, I'm not going to go all right-wing conspiracy nut on you- I don't think that the NWO or Illuminati or some other crazy shit that came out of Alex Jones's mouth is actually, currently, in the works.
That said, you seem like an intelligent person- as such, I hope you don't actually trust the government to have the best interests of the people in mind as their main priority, or in some cases, as even a priority. If we had someone with the ideals of Donald Trump in the white house who was slightly more intelligent, along with functional Congress and Senate who could actually pass legislation that their majorities agree with, we could be in real trouble.
I do think that, with time and without guns, it would be perfectly within the scope of possibility that history's next version of Auschwitz for Muslims would be built on American soil, for starters. This of course would take place after every other constitutional right had been stripped, from freedom of religion, to press, speech, petitioning, assembly, lawyer representation, public and speedy trial, appeal, to the rights not to self- incriminate or quarter soldiers to the rights against unlawful search and seizure or cruel & unusual punishment, etc, etc, etc. Without firearms, we have no means to resist when a government becomes tyrannical; our only option is to either bend over or run to the hills. We are already seeing lawmakers try to justify making exceptions to what could be considered not just constitutional, but human rights. The second amendment exists so that we, the people, can defend the rest of the ideals upheld by the constitution.
People often say at this point, how could you hope to stand up to the government, with tanks and drones and well trained men and women of the armed forces? Well, allow me to remind you: they're people too, not just weapons, who are getting screwed by the government probably more than anyone else. We all took oaths to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and if a violation against it were egregious enough, many of us- probably not all of us- would turn on the government. Consider that, and consider our track record with fighting insurgencies. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq- it's not stellar.
Goodness. I've written more than 1,500 words so far and I've only gotten past the point of "guns are made for killing, which is sometimes necessary". I'm going to have to continue this later. However, before I go, I wanted to point out that I like the idea you proposed of tax- deductible safety courses every year. I think this would be an excellent compromise between our current system and forcing people to take the course before buying a gun, and I thank you for your contribution to the discussion in general, but for that point especially.
I will write up a continuation of my arguments as soon as I can- thank you, once again, for the opportunity for civil discussion. I look forward to hearing back from you.
The first and most common example is self defense, and defense of others
This is a gratuitous logical fallacy which has been purposefully ingrained into mainstream American culture. You cannot use a gun for defence. Guns are weapons and the purpose of a weapon is to attack. Nowhere else in society is this perfectly backwards definition of defence used except in the case of guns, which is a fairly large clue as to its actual applicability under scrutiny.
There is an old adage which is very pertinent here, and that is: "The best form of defence is attack". Guns are a physical representation of this adage. If you feel under threat and you are armed, you can neutralise the potential threat by attacking it. But this is not defence. This is having a superior form of attack to the thing you see as a threat.
America is a very strange place because it has made an actual art out of turning the truth upside down and then selling it.
If you feel under threat and you are armed, you can neutralise the potential threat by attacking it. But this is not defence. This is having a superior form of attack to the thing you see as a threat
Speaking of turning the truth upside down. A man breaks into my house and I shoot him. I was playing offense in my own house...
I must first argue "ecxept all of those times it has been used for defense", but let's analyze this. If you are currently being attacked, what is the actual moral difference between using a gun and using another form of self defense? I don't owe someone that is attacking me a chance at being successful, so I'm going to give them the smallest one possible. Unless you are arguing that the basic human right to self preservation doesn't exist.
Using a gun defensively isn't "attacking", nobody is advocating for me being able to shoot someone in public because I THINK he may be a threat. A preemptive action would certainly be an attack. You adage is true in war and sports, but not so much when applied to a simple walk down the street. Shooting someone who's mugging me- or even waving a gun at them and scaring them off, which is much more common- is an action against someone who's actively initiated an attack. And between the moment they initiate attack, to the moment that either A) they are running away empty handed, B) they have surrendered, or C) one of us is dead, I have no obligation to apologize for my actions. Regardless of whether or not I happen to be carrying the superior weapon. Same applies to home invaders, active shooters, carjackers, rapists, kidnappers, bank/ store robbers, etc, etc, etc. The one exception I make is if an active shooter is running away, then they're just attacking in another direction and still need to be stopped.
If you can convince me that the basic human right to self preservation is a fantasy, or that there is a moral difference between defense with a gun and defense by another means, I'll admit that I keep my guns around because I'm selfish. Until then, the argument that defense with a gun is automatically an attack, just because, is something I can't take seriously.
"America is a very strange place because it has made an actual art out of turning the truth upside down and then selling it."
Actually, in many other cases, I won't argue that point. But as far as I'm concerned, the rest of the world has the gun issue upside down.
I must first argue "ecxept all of those times it has been used for defense", but let's analyze this.
I'd appreciate that because the sentence above simply repeats the same false premise I just debunked. Shooting a person in the face is not defence. There is something seriously wrong with your belief system if you do not understand this. Indeed, what we see with most Americans is that they refuse to understand it. What you are arguing contradicts reason and yet you are still arguing it.
If you are currently being attacked, what is the actual moral difference between using a gun and using another form of self defense?
You are doing it again. Debate is not an exercise in mindlessly repeating false assumptions after they have been logically debunked. That's stupid buddy. Who has taught you that debate is about ignoring what the other person says?
Using a gun defensively isn't "attacking"
I have precisely and meticulously explained to you why you are wrong, and this is the third time within your very first paragraph that you have repeated the same false premise I just debunked, without offering any further argument to its validity. You are arguing from sheer psychological indoctrination and that is why you are using repetition to try to fight reason.
Have you ever watched a boxing match or any type of contact sport? When the commentator praises a good boxing defence he means the fighter is covering up well and moving out of range. He does not mean the fighter is punching the other guy in the face repeatedly. When a soccer commentator praises a good defence he is talking about a team's ability to stop the other team from scoring a goal. He is not talking about the defensive team scoring goals. Put as simply as possible, whether an action of your own is offensive or defensive does not depend on the behaviour of someone else. This is the precise same fallacy husbands use when they demand to know why their wives are making them beat them.
I am finished with this conversation because I was wrong in my estimation that it would be possible to have a rational conversation with you. You are essentially a mindless puppet who is repeating a false premise over and over and over again, while completely ignoring all evaluations of why it is false.
You argue that I should feel bad for harming someone who's actively attempting to attack me or my family. Let me be as clear as possible: If someone were to attack me or my family, I'm going to use every available means to ensure that whoever's hurt isn't on my side of the altercation. And I don't owe you, them, or anyone an apology for that.
What is your experience with violence? Have you ever been attacked? Do you really believe it is always a viable or acceptable option to either run away, or when that doesn't work, curl up into a ball and hope the problem will sort itself out? You think in a situation where someone is trying to harm you, there is always a solution where both of you walk away unhurt? You think once someone else has initiated violence that you owe them some kind of guarantee that there will be no physical consequences to their actions? And you want to label that "Logic"?
I'm sure you think, in your own head, that you've "meticulously explained" why a gun can only be used offensively, while any other method is apparently acceptable. If you argue for total pacifism and never acting in self preservation under any circumstances, then that's the only way your argument holds up at all. But those of us in the real world realize that there are people who want to harm you for no good reason, and we have a plan that's better than 'bend over and take it'. And hey, if you're ever in harm's way and want to talk it out with your attackers, I'll be happy to provide cover fire if that doesn't work out.
You, sir, are delusional if you believe you've logically debunked anything. Either make better arguments, consider your own position, or fuck off and have a pleasant day. That's how a debate works.
Furthermore: Your metaphors of sports and abusive husbands are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Consenting persons who step into a boxing ring or onto a soccer field have established rules of engagement, nor are they actively trying to kill each other. That is nothing like being the target of a violent attack out of the blue. As for the abusive husband analogy (putting aside the fact that you're even able to draw a parallel is disgusting) the husband is the one initiating violence. The wife is the one justified to act defensively. In fact, she'd be justified in shooting him.
Second: do not be the kind of arrogant little shit that assumes that just because most Americans are stupid, and you're talking to one, means that you automatically speak from a position of moral or intellectual superiority. I assure you, I'm not your average American.
And third:if you're going to write out an argument in response to mine, and I have made every necessary attempt at being respectful, have the decency to act civil. Otherwise this website just turns into another pile of bickering cunts, and that isn't worth anyone's time.
I must argue that saying main purpose and any broader terms are different, is merely semantics. In saying the sole purpose of a gun is to kill, I am not by any means then suggesting that the only purpose for said weapon is to murder innocent people in a shooting spree. I don't believe that's what you were really implying but I wanted to clear that up. "To Kill" could imply many things, as the definition previously stated was 'to put an end to'. That could be used in hunting, skeet shooting, yes defense (though I would argue that if you pull a gun out on someone you are prepared to use it to put an end to said someone), and attack. There are many uses for the gun, not all bad but the end goal is the same. The gun is made to kill.
Let me ask you this instead of focusing solely on the AR15, what purpose does an average citizen have in owning an automatic? I'm not intentionally dodging the question, I would like to see why you think someone needs a fully automatic weapon and hear your reason, perhaps you have one that I hadn't previously thought of. Defense? It's too powerful, and my FIL and I agree (he is a genuine gun nut) that a shot gun is WAY more effective for intimidation. But that's our opinion.
The situation you presented is actually one previously discussed in the CD forum. If someone breaks into my house I actually have a few guns at my disposal. I genuinely do not care if they make off with the TV but I will be standing with my gun drawn between them and my kids. They will have the option to leave but the only way I'm using that gun is if they represent to me a clear and present danger to my kids. I don't care about the property but if they come at my family while I have a gun drawn their intent wasn't just to steal and they won't get any more options. That gun will be used to kill. It will be fulfilling what it was designed for, sure in defense but it will be killing. The criminal will get one chance to live however.
Lol, almost everyone in my family is military of some sorts, I'm well aware of words making ears bleed, I've used a few myself. But I do believe there is a time and a place for everything.
I agree that there is a truth that lies in between what the NRA says and what anti-gun advocates say, it's really going to be more of a guessing game than being able to find un-biased hard facts.
Now let me ask you this, what do you think about the stand your ground laws that some states have and the excuses that go along with it. Let me give you an example. A recent case where someone shot a fleeing intruder and they were cleared under stand your ground. Thoughts?
For me, there is a dangerous mentality that believes there is justification in shooting someone who is fleeing. They present zero danger, yet there are enough gun enthusiasts who believe such action is not only justified but applaudable. Even if it was some stupid kid on a dare, this thought process where items and vengeance are more important than life is commonly heard across the board and, to me anyways, is almost worse than the crime of some idiot just trying to steal.
Do you think that there should be harsher punishments for those who do not practice gun safety and whose actions cause the death of innocents?
Example. A parent owns multiple guns and keeps them and the ammo in a night stand beside their bed. Not in a safe, not separate from ammo. That parents kid gets the gun, the ammo and then goes on a shooting spree at their school.
Another example. A parent is in the process of cleaning the gun, leaves it on the bed and their toddler comes in, see's it and starts playing with it while there is a bullet in the chamber because it was left there and the parent didn't check.
These are both examples of not only negligence but GROSS negligence, resulting in the deaths of innocent people. Should there be harsher penalties for this? Do you believe they should be allowed to own guns after this?
I know many people argue that the government wants our guns taken away. I don't hold too much stock in this but I won't brush that concern aside. However even with an automatic, what chance will you have against a plane dropping bombs on a city? Tanks rolling down the street? No matter what we have, the government has more so let's first focus on not killing each other FOR the government and let's try to get some better gun control for people that have no business owning them or providing incentives for people who DO own them into taking better care of their weapons.
I look forward to the rest of your debate. I hope you rest easy on your shore leave.
OK! It's been awhile, I'm sorry to have kept you waiting. Let me try and keep this shorter than the last one. I'll be going through a lot of points rather quickly.
Machine guns are illegal and have been for 31 years. The modern AR15 rifle is a semi- automatic, which means one shot per trigger squeeze. You can get around machine gun laws, but not without a lot of paperwork, registration, time, money (the going rate for a full auto AK47 is around 25-30 grand these days), a high tolerance for bureaucracy, etc. Converting guns to full auto usually means about 20 years in prison.
Why do I think they should be legal? Because they're not as dangerous as Hollywood makes them look. Are they impractical? Yes. They're a great way to blow through 40 dollars in 3 seconds while missing most every shot. Do I want one anyway? Absolutely. I like things that go bang. Full autos are not as dangerous as most people think because the added rate of fire sacrifices any concept of accuracy- in warfare, they're rarely used for anything other than suppressive fire, and anyone cut down by automatic gunfire is usually a happy accident (depending on what side of the gunfire you're on). Consider the Las Vegas shooter. He didn't use a machine gun, but he did use a bump stock, which has a similar effect. He fired his weapons into the crowd randomly, not at individuals. Most of those bullets didn't hit anyone. The shooting lasted between 9 and 11 minutes. If he had instead used my old Mosin Nagant, a rifle made in 1942, he likely would have gone down to a rate of fire of about 15 rounds a minute- but each one would have been directed at an individual head or torso. A seventy percent accuracy rate at 400 yards is a reasonable expectation with a little practice. You can do the math there, but the point is that with a little more precision comes a lot more efficiency. If he had slowed down a little, Las Vegas could have been much, much worse.
I do agree, a shotgun loaded with OO buck, rifled slugs, or sometimes even birdshot has its merits. And there are very few sounds that say "get the fuck out of my house" in every language quite like racking a pump action shotgun. But, there are always the unfortunate situations where you need to do more than intimidate, and a semiautomatic rifle is just a better tool for that job. Less recoil, quicker follow up shots, greater capacity, these are all great reasons to use a rifle instead of a shotgun. A shotgun's buckshot spread is only a few inches at typical home defense range, so the myth of how you can't miss with a shotgun won't do you any good, and reloading shells individually is difficult to do quickly without the added stress factor of "I need to kill someone before they kill me". Missing in a defensive situation is frequent, and with high adrenaline (and possibly drugs such as PCP or bath salts) comes the possibility that someone won't get the hint after being shot once. Nor do you know how many will come, their intentions, or whether they are armed. As far as being too powerful for defense? That's the point, is to not give the other guy any advantage. You don't owe them a fair fight.
I am glad to hear that you are willing to defend your home and family with force.
As far as stand your ground: yes, we need this nationwide. No, I don't think that it's OK to shoot someone who's fleeing empty-handed (emphasis on empty-handed). However: the crucial difference between a SYG state and one without those protections is the burden of proof in court. In a non SYG state, you have to prove that your life was threatened, and that you took every action possible to get away, before you are cleared of charges (which is ridiculous, if they are attacking you, especially in your own home). In a SYG state, it is the burden of the state to prove that you acted outside of legal boundaries when defending yourself. That is a major legal difference, and it keeps a lot of people who were just trying to defend their families out of jail.
And yes, I know that people are idiots when it comes to guns. I had a cousin shoot my uncle in the gut with a .22 and put him in the ICU. Now, this was (almost) one hundred percent my uncle's fault. Why? The kid had no damn sense of muzzle discipline and his dad never taught it to him. Should there have been a set of handcuffs or a fine waiting for my uncle when he got out of the hospital? I would say no. He had been through enough, and was the only person injured. He still has a bullet lodged in his pelvis. And you can be damn sure my cousin went to a gun safety course after that.
Next example: there's a 7-11 across the street from the house where I grew up. One day in 2007 or so, Joe Schmuck is driving along, while cleaning his gun. Gun goes off, hits him in the leg, he drives off the road and hits the 7-11 sign, toppling it and totaling his car. Should he be charged? Boy howdy, I hope he was. Difference? He was the only one injured, but there was still property damage. And frankly, let's consider the nature of the multitasking at play. You can do something while talking on a cell phone, but it shouldn't be driving. Driving requires all of you attention. So does operating a firearm. Cleaning a gun, which is something that requires both hands and can go horribly wrong in an instant, and driving a car, which is something that requires both hands and can go horribly wrong in an instant, SHOULD NOT MIX. Because apparently some people need to be told this. And combining the two seems such an egregious offense that yes, I consider it worse than my cousin never being taught gun safety. One is lazy, and the other one is stupid, but to a ludicrous degree. And if my cousin had accidentally shot someone else, well then, yes. At that point, my uncle should be charged.
The examples you provided: If a kid goes on a shooting spree at their school, then by default, there's almost certainly something going on at home that the parents should be arrested for. Abuse, neglect, whatever, I find it difficult to believe that someone could have become so warped without problems in the home. But, that doesn't answer your question. Unfortunately, I don't have one, or at least not a simple one. This sort of thing needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Sometimes there is greater merit to the kid being able to defend the house. Sometimes not. The parent needs to have some handle of this, and measure their storage options appropriately, and thankfully there are some good options out there- biometric safes and the like. In the case of the toddler getting a hold of the gun when they turn away for a second- ultimately no, I wouldn't press charges. Of course it's tragic, and of course it could have been prevented, but you can say that about any number of accidental child deaths that happen every day and by any method, and unfortunately despite the greatest care, these things do happen. One of the facts that we refuse to tell ourselves is that you can't save everyone. Whether the kid drowned in a pool, or got into the cleaning chemicals, or was playing in the street, or was playing with a gun, a dead child is a dead child and you can't have eyes on them every single second of every single day. And the parents will be suffering and punishing themselves far more than the state ever could. Now, if there are unsecured guns, chemicals, etc. all over the house and the place is pretty much a death trap for a toddler? Sure, press charges. But not because someone failed to address the one dangerous factor that happened to have a tragic result. You can't control every detail of every circumstance.
As far as "tanks rolling down the street"- Yes, I can see the dilemma. Yes, if I found myself up against a tank with my little AR15, I'm probably screwed. But you have you consider what it would take for the government to mobilize tanks in the first place. Obviously I don't buy into the far right narrative of how that could happen any day now, and the gub'mints gonna take away our rights to freedom of religion 'cause theyre letting the gays get married and Hillary Clinton's one of the lizard people and blah blah blah. Frankly, I don't know if Americans will ever again get off their lazy asses and start fighting, no matter how bad things get. But if they do- at least, to a greater degree than some right wing fringe group of 12 crazies trying to make some kind of statement- then the government has a real problem. First, the tank's just a tank. It's an inanimate object. It's the soldiers you need to be worried about (especially if they're operating a tank, but I digress). If the government is ever in such violation of the law of the land that the people ever decide to hold them accountable, there are going to be a few soldiers in the side of the mix that goes up against the government. With commandeered tanks that the government gave them. Plenty more who don't want to fight American citizens. And while the military has about 1.4 million people, that's only about .4 percent of the population. The military is outmanned against the people it's trying to protect. And while they have the best weapons, we have more of them.
And here is where we come to major disagreement. I'm sorry, but I just don't see any way that we can effectively keep guns out of the hands of crazy people without violating the ability of normal people to obtain firearms. I see it like trying to develop a test at the DMV that will determine if someone will ever get a DUI before they ever get their license. No one is clairvoyant. Some people, you just can't tell how crazy they are, nor can you tell how crazy they're going to get in the future. And if you develop a system that denies people access to guns based on something so arbitrary, plenty of law abiding, perfectly reasonable, somewhat weird people will be denied firearms for no reason- far more than the number of actual potential killers. Shit, for some reason, people that meet me think I'm a serial killer. I don't know why, it vexes me, but I've already killed all of the people I want to: zero. I'm just one of many that would be denied access to firearms if a system such as the terrorist watch bill were put in place, built to deny people guns instead of the ability to get on a plane. People get put on terror watch lists all the time because of either something arbitrary- a book they looked up on the internet, for instance- or because someone called homeland security and said "watch out for that guy". On top of that, not only would this deny ordinary people access to firearms, but there's just no guarantee that it will keep someone who's good at appearing normal away from a weapon. Now, mental health is a huge problem in the United States, one without a clear solution. And it goes far beyond guns. What we need to do is establish a nationwide plan to help these people and get them necessary treatment, not just try to get guns away from them and let them go on living their lives. Frankly, I'm not smart enough to come up with that solution. But there are quite literally millions of people in the US that have some degree and type of mental illness that goes untreated. There is no plan to help them. Regardless of whether or not these people have guns, that is a national embarrassment.
OK, gun free zones. Yes, people are stupid, even in gun free zones. But a person shooting themselves out of their own stupidity is hardly a good reason to deny someone else the ability to carry a firearm, and it definitely isn't a good reason to designate a 'helpless target' zone. Sure, you don't know my state of mind if you were to meet me on the street, but you also don't know me from Adam, and you don't know I have a gun on me (that's kind of the point- it's a concealed weapon). I don't know who else on the street is armed or their state of mind. But I know that on the off chance if someone snaps and starts shooting random passers-by, your best bet of survival is either to shoot back, or get behind someone who's shooting back.
Open carry- there is some contention in the gun community over this topic. I like to think that most of us think that the people who open carry, at least the people that get all the attention for it, are idiots. They like to think they're making a political statement, but really they're freaking a lot of people out, convincing them to hide indoors and call the cops. Then the cops show up and the people carrying are often rude. This just reinforces a terrible stereotype of gun owners, and it irritates me just as much as anyone. Now, that's not to say that open carry isn't all bad. There are a lot of wrong ways to open carry, but there is a right way, even with a rifle. The key is just to be as subtle as possible and look professional. There is a world of difference in presence between an unshaven man in tactical gear carrying a rifle through the streets at low ready, versus someone who's cleaned up a bit and is wearing business attire while carrying a rifle on their back. Is there a good reason to carry a rifle openly, as opposed to a concealed handgun? Not really, the odds that you'll need it aren't worth the extra weight. But I see no reason to say that they can't- I just wish that some of them would stop being belligerent assholes about it, or try to make a political statement out of it.
So much for keeping this any shorter. Sorry to have kept you waiting- I've enjoyed our discussion so far, and I look forward to hearing from you.
You are trying to compare guns to drunk drivers and cars. It was YOUR comparison and I was pointing out the flaw in it. If you stopped reading then that's your own fault for not getting the point.
Guns are not made to murder. They are made for protection, hunting, target shooting, etc. etc.
That is a truly idiotic statement, I expect better from you. Gun are meant to KILL. That is their purpose. Murder and killing both result in the death of something, the difference is the reasoning.
Just because control fanatics like you don't participate in gun use, does not mean others do not get enjoyment and protection from guns.
Sorry but you're wrong. I have a few guns in my house, all locked in a safe and away from the kids. Amazingly a person can own guns and still think things need to change, it's the mark of a person who is capable of thinking.
Hogwash! We use guns to hunt, for protection, for target shooting, for shooting competition, etc.
You are a sickening control fanatic who wants to control things that stay locked in your gun cabinet. So why do you have a gun if there is no use for them?
Tell me.... what is the purpose of alcohol?
It's purpose is to get people drunk or get them buzzed so they can forget about their self inflicted problems in life.
We should restrict alcohol under your mindless logic. If we went by your logic, many things that we have no need for in society should be restricted.
Boats, swimming, mountain climbing, sky diving, hang gliding, etc. etc. all have no value other than enjoyment, so lets restrict them sense people die from them every day.
Guns give millions of people enjoyment in life whether you are too stupid and deceptive to admit it.
It's sickening we have people so selfish as you to try and restrict other people's enjoyments in life.
I'm waiting for you to address my entire point of back ground checks in bars for repeat DWI offenders, TO SAVE LIVES!
Oh, that's right, it would inconvienence you and make your alcohol cost more.
You are a sickening control fanatic who wants to control things that stay locked in your gun cabinet. So why do you have a gun if there is no use for them?
Where did I say there was no use for them? In fact I listed several uses but you go ahead and point out where I said no use, I'll wait.
We should restrict alcohol under your mindless logic.
Alcohol IS restricted. There is an age limit and dependent on your state most bartenders have a cut off limit for people. There are also laws against public intoxication and drunk driving and driving with an open container.
Boats, swimming, mountain climbing, sky diving, hang gliding, etc. etc. all have no value other than enjoyment, so lets restrict them sense people die from them every day.
Nonsensical argument. No one is arguing that, anyone who is killed by them know the risks and still do it anyways. People don't choose to go to church and get shot. Seriously there is zero comparison.
Guns give millions of people enjoyment in life whether you are too stupid and deceptive to admit it.
So does alcohol yet here you are arguing against it.
It's sickening we have people so selfish as you to try and restrict other people's enjoyments in life.
What's sickening is you can't figure out the most basic things and offer no potential solutions to a problem we are having. Again, gun control is not banning. You want to continue as we are and innocent people are dying because fools like you are to scared to try anything that may help.
I'm waiting for you to address my entire point of back ground checks in bars for repeat DWI offenders, TO SAVE LIVES!
Oh, that's right, it would inconvienence you and make your alcohol cost more.
I don't care if alcohol costs more, go ahead and tax the crap out of it and apply that towards our infrastructure. Most DWI offenders have this nifty lil gadget in their cars that they have to breathe into to start the car. Others have their license removed. Other still have to be under house arrest. And even more, some are tossed in jail and/or made to go to AA.
So again, what is your solution towards the gun violence in this country? Go ahead, I'm waiting for even ONE good idea from you. So far I'll I've gotten is smoke screen and more mindless logic of your own.
ROFLOL, drunk drivers who have lost their licenses drive without licenses. They go into bars to get drunk and drive home with no licenses. Back ground checks for these killers would actually work in bars, but you don't wnt them because it would inconvienence you.
DO YOU SEE HOW LAWS DON'T PREVENT SELFISH PEOPLE FROM HURTING OTHERS?
THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE LAWS!
I never said i wanted back ground checks in bars. I said you fool hypocrite control freaks will never touch your pleasures in life with back ground checks no matter how many lives saved.
I wasted enough time with a conditional control fanatic. IGNORE!
It's like you kind of read, but don't, then guess at the rest. So again.
Where did I say they had no use?
What are some possible solutions towards the problems we are having?
Have you finally figured out that regardless of intent, the guns sole purpose is it kill?
Do you know the difference between gun control and gun ban?
New question, where did I say that you want back ground checks in bars? And how would I be inconvenienced?
Lol, ignore? Well now I know I backed you in a corner and you're using the only means you have to back out of the debate. You've dodged every legitimate question as quick as possible to avoid looking foolish. It didn't work. You'd be better if you admitted even one wrong of yours, such as your claim that I said something I clearly did not. But since you don't have the fortitude to admit even that, you are simply a deceptive, hypocritical fool.
He's difficult to debate with, not because he's GOOD at it but because he simply doesn't. He wants to stand on his soap box and cover his ears to the rest.
Guns are not made to murder. They are made for protection
You are genuinely stupid if you believe this because it means you do not understand the difference between defence and attack. If I punch you in your idiotic face and you block the strike then that is defence. If you instead pull out a gun and blow the top of my head off then that is attack.
Being a Texan the law allows for me to protect my property with lethal force. Defending my life is a god given right. Being under attack and in fear for my life warrants lethal force.
Being a Texan the law allows for me to protect my property with lethal force.
And because of that law property owners often shoot friends and relatives when they arrive unexpectedly. Because of that law anybody coming to rob your house is GUARANTEED to be armed with a lethal firearm, otherwise they would just be plain stupid. Because of that law people lose their lives over who owns the last chicken nugget on the plate.
I'm will not address your first statement. Plain stupid is precisely what a burglar breaking into my house is. Or plain dead. Here in San Antonio I've seen many news stories where worthless thieves were shot either attempting to steal a vehicle or running away from a burglary. GUARANTEED not one single tear was shed.
Plain stupid is precisely what a burglar breaking into my house is. Or plain dead
Plain stupid is what you are for wanting to legalise guns, because now the burglar is armed with a Glock and your entire family is at risk. Maybe he shoots your mom in the face while he runs away. Maybe a stray bullet hits your three year old daughter in the neck.
In the UK burglars don't carry guns because they get more prison time for carrying a gun than they do for committing a burglary.
It takes a certain level of insanity to think that the solution to our gun violence is to give out more guns and to blame the victims for not having their own. Either that or you work for the NRA.
We have the means to limit who gets guns, to impose stricter regulations, and to close loop holes that currently exist, unfortunately until we can get the gun nuts heads out of their butts, we won't be able to try as they keep thinking gun control and outright banning is the same thing.
It takes a certain level of ignorance to think that imposing stricter regulations will prevent a criminal from acquiring guns. Knee jerk reactions asking for stricter gun laws will only serve to make it more difficult and time consuming for legal gun owners.
Those poor peoples became victims because of an evil pos who was the only armed person.
As I said. Insanity. If you think the solution is to arm more people then I think you reached a level of ignorance higher than my own. People, as a whole, are fairly stupid. There needs to be better training for gun care and maintenance, loopholes need to be closed and some people just don't need to be able to buy guns. But, I'm curious, other than arming everyone, what other solutions do you have?
Those poor peoples became victims because of an evil pos who was the only armed person.
Hello again, Jim:
Yeah... One person CAN ruin it for the rest of us. Chipping away at the problem WON'T stop bad guys from getting guns either. We've been chipping for years, and we got bupkis..
So, it's time to stop chipping, and start outlawing..
Years of infringing upon our rights by enacting stricter regulations has been ineffective. Outright confiscation would be disastrous on many levels. Only firearms acquired legally are recorded and tracked in order to confiscate. Only illegal guns would remain. Besides, the laws of supply and demand would make gunsmiths very busy.
Watching the news today they kept showing the church pasteurs young daughter who was killed. My buddy's kid is only 15 and quite the marksman. That killer would've had a nice little cluster of holes in his chest if that kid was there.
Outright confiscation would be disastrous on many levels
Stop inventing your own imaginary obstacles to the success of gun reform. A great many other countries have already banned guns with massive success. Your pontificating nonsense does not stop this from being the reality of the situation.
Besides, the laws of supply and demand would make gunsmiths very busy.
The law where they get twenty years for making a gun would remove some of that busyness.
You say gun reform in one sentence and banning in the next.
If guns are legal then banning them is gun reform, is it not?
What I hear is a policy to endanger folks by criminalizing self defense.
That's because you're a spectacularly brainwashed imbecile who has somehow been convinced that shooting someone in the head with a toxic piece of lead is a form of defence rather than attack. Killing people is not a form of defence. The stupidity of your language is just unbelievable. What you are essentially saying is that you need guns as a form of defence against.... Wait for it... OTHER PEOPLE'S GUNS.
We the PEOPLE can stop it by exercising our right to defend ourselves. Several of those poor people were licensed to conceal carry but foolishly left their weapons in their vehicles. It is imperative to defend yourself and others. There is only 2 choices, be a victim or a hero.
Impossible to argue that fact, however it certainly didn't do any harm, either. Not every life threatening situation will allow a person a defense using a pistol. Guaranteed that an unarmed person is hopeless.
Yeah, All the drunk but responsible gun owners probably carried to the concert with no security there to stop them. That explains all the reports of people returning fire...
I don't go to concerts so I don't know if people are patted down or go through metal detectors.. So, I wouldn't KNOW if there were guns there or not.. But, that's NOT the point of my post.. It's a ruse.. I dunno WHY you'd rather deflect than discuss.. You USED to engage me..
Clearly, the POINT I was making, is that even IF there were 1,000's of guns in that crowd, it would have made NO difference at all.. You get that, right???
I'm willing to listen to your argument about how a WELL ARMED crowd could have stopped this shooter.. That is, if you wanna..
Shooting a hand gun up 32 stories is likely to be ineffective. An armed public would have done nothing for 911 too. An armed public likely would have done nothing to effect the most recent attacker in NY other than shoot him after he killed people. But an armed woman can stop a rapist in the park. An armed shop owner can defend his store. Off duty police officer foil armed robbers commonly enough.
Pointing to situations wherein guns won’t help, is not an argument against the far more common scenarios in which guns can help.
As always, the Liberal gun control fanatics come out of the woodworks after any tragedy.
It's amazing these same hypocrites who like to drink never say a peep when many thousands more innocent people are killed by drunk drivers.
Do you here these hypocrites talking about bakground checks in the bar before handing out drinks, and thereby saving many lives from repeat DWI drivers? NAH! These hypocrites drink don't you know?
They don't want to be inconvienenced.
It is absoutely laughable that any intelligent thinking person would make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, while criminals will not abide by any new laws or restrictions.
Let me say this very slowly for the hypocritical gun control fools.
The only reason Big Brother Government wants to take the people's guns, is so they can control the people. This is why guns are outlawed in dictatorships.
Stricter gun control laws DON'T WORK as we see in places like Chicago, but this of course is not about saving lives. This is about taking our guns.
These liars constanty say that their end goals are not to take our guns. ROFLOL
Yeah we could do something, give guns to everyone with a clean criminal history. I'm pretty sure a shooter would think twice about pulling out a gun if 2/3 of the people they wish to shoot at had a gun. And even if they tried, I doubt they would get far.
Gun turn in stations will cure all the problems but you only have one problem site clown. How are the Nazi police force going to root out all the weapons that are not on the books.
We used those in the UK. They were pretty effective.
How are the Nazi police force going to root out all the weapons that are not on the books.
They won't need to root out anything. If new legislation is introduced which punishes possession of a firearm with a standard five year prison sentence then people won't be able to hand in their guns fast enough. Very few people will want the risk of owning one.
1) If you die a martyr you're saved forever, right?
2) God is all mighty and has the power to stop a mass murder in his house if he wants to do so. He just didn't want to do so in this case. Perhaps someone in the congregation was thinking dirty thoughts and he punished the group for it like in the Old Testament?
