Summations Only

When they include things like someone brandishing a BB-gun and a student caught with a bullet in his backpack, then it makes me question the utility of the statistics on these "gun-related incidents".People can use statistics to prove anything; 14% of people know that.

It's not an obscure hypothetical, it's a design flaw. Is it an obscure hypothetical that police with a weapon-retention feature on their holsters retain their weapon more often than those that don't?The starting premise is a great start. I am simply advocating for a better design. I think you are assuming that I want nothing at all when in fact I'm advocating for a better way of ensuring that only the correct individual can use the weapon.

That was only relevant to the 2012 study. A new poll indicated that in 2015, 21% of people know that you can use statistics to prove anything... at least 45% of the time... and after applying a standard deviation of 6.

If only this 8 year had been armed she could have protected herself.....or maybe we would just have 2 dead kids.11-year-old boy convicted of killing 8-year-old girl - National | Globalnews.caEquating the widespread ownership of guns with freedom simply rings hollow, and from a Christian perspective it is exactly the opposite of the message of Jesus Christ. Understanding the Bible as inerrant means that you can put any interpretation on anything you want including the proliferation of guns.

I think you are mischaracterizing the "Christian" opinion, GDR, at least mine. I've never argued for MORE guns for instance, just for the right to carry them into some zones now denied to them. I'm also in favor of safety measures, only I don't know enough about guns to know which would be the best choice. I'm definitely in favor of mandatory training in how to use guns safely.And I certainly don't get your equation between Bible inerrancy and the justification of gun proliferation. If anything your view of the Bible that chooses what you like best is the sort of thinking that could justify anything you want to justify.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's been scientifically proven that not allowing people to have guns, significantly reduces the number of gun related deaths and injuries. Strange but true.

Yeah, cuz, forget the actions of the offender. It's obviously the fault of the guns themselves. 'He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. -- Luke 22:36"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." -- Matthew 10:34In modern times, might Jesus have said if you don't have a bitchin' M4, sell a possession in order to have one? I don't know. But why is he advocating buying a sword when it only has one purpose?

Not really. Guns are allowed, but very restricted in places like Canada and Brazil, with markedly higher rates of violence per capita in Brazil. Mexico has no private ownership and in Switzerland it's practically mandatory, yet the rates of death by gun are much higher per capita in Mexico. One could argue that they are being smuggled in to Mexico through the US, which is true. But Russia, which shares no border with the US has a similar gun violence problem.Actually having less guns obviously would decrease the number of gun deaths, but just "not allowing" them doesn't solve the puzzle.The fundamental issue is countries that are violent. And in the absence of guns, violent countries find other means, such as the U.K.'s knife violence problem.

OK. Let's look at Luke 22:36 in context.

quote:

---

35 Then Jesus asked them, When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?Nothing, they answered. 36 He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. 38 The disciples said, See, Lord, here are two swords. That’s enough! he replied.

---

First we can see that Jesus asks them if when he had sent them out with nothing if they had lacked anything and they reply that no they hadn't. Then he says but now you figure you need a purse, a bag and swords. Then he quotes Isaiah 53:12 which is the part of Isaiah that talks about the suffering servant.

quote:

---

....he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

---

So here Jesus is saying that they are the transgressors as they are still thinking that they should be armed and as a result that He is being numbered with them.Then when they say they have two swords he says "that's enough" and puts an end to the discussion.So He is actually saying that He has shown them that they not only don't need swords to follow Him but they don't need money or other worldly goods. In spite of this that they still don't get it.You then quoted Matthew 10:34 which says: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." This is also quoted in Luke 12:51 where it is translated as bringing division as opposed to a sword. The point He is making is that His message is controversial and the following verses in both cases then talks about bringing division even within families.Jesus lived in a country that was under the brutal domination of the Romans and here He was telling them that they were to love their enemies, turn the other cheek and when a Roman soldier told them to carry his pack for a mile they were to go an extra mile. The point was that the Romans weren't the enemy as in the larger context it was evil itself that was the enemy, and that the weapon against evil is goodness as expressed in kindness and love.This would not be very different than to tell some one in Holland in 1942 that their response to the Nazis should be to love them and turn the other cheek. (Which is not the same thing as collaborating.) That is a very divisive message. Jesus is simply saying that following Him would be anything but easy, and goes on to say when He quotes Micah 7:6 that they are likely to even suffer divisions within their own families.

That would make sense in colloquial English, but I highly doubt that is what it means in the original Aramaic, since "That is enough," also indicates what it literally means, which is, that is plenty.I hope you aren't advocating a totally pacifist Jesus. If so, what is your defense against him whipping people out of the Temple? Except that in all of eschatology it is very obvious that the end times and judgment is meant to illustrate total destruction of the apostates. Try and remember, if you're talking about Jesus not only as the Son of God but also God himself (the Trinity), then we're still talking about the same God that causes pestilence, famine, war, catastrophes, and who wiped out the entire planet (save 7 people). That is assuming that slapping someone on the cheek and turning to him the other also can be extrapolated all the way up to rape, torture, murder and genocide. There's quite a debate amongst Christians that question whether or not Jesus was advocating total pacifism or if his comments were a general rule of thumb about accepting criticism without resorting to an eye-for-eye mentality.My answer is: Not enough information given to make a conclusive argument in either direction.

Yes, really.Working hypotheses:No guns, no gun deaths.
Some guns, some gun deaths.
Lots of guns, lots of gun deaths.Exceptions will be possible and other factors will ameliorate or exacerbate but the common theme is the presence of a gun.

Not really that it's strange? Or not really that reducing gun prevalence reduces gun deaths? I'm going with latter given what you say next: First, comparing just two countries out of a couple hundred is statistically meaningless, and the data that Tangle is referring to has great statistical significance, but I'll examine your comparison anyway. First, I assume when you say "higher rates of violence" you mean gun violence. This List of countries by number of guns per capita at Wikipedia says that Canada has 30.8 guns per 100 residents, and that Brazil has 8. This List of countries by firearm-related death rate shows Canada at 1.97 per 100,000 population and Brazil at 19.72. That does indeed appear to contradict the claim that gun prevalence correlates with gun violence: But the 8 guns per 100 residents must be legal guns. Read any article about gun violence in Brazil and you'll find it suffers from the combination of an enormously high rate of illegal guns and a significant ghetto violence problem, where illegal guns are likely concentrated. These Brazilian internal problems so different from Canada are an example of why you can't just pick two countries and compare them. Even with similar countries comparisons are difficult. The statistics Tangle is referencing are from studies of gun violence in a single country or of comparisons of similar countries. Mexico and Switzerland? Could you find more different countries to compare? Maybe Luxembourg‎ and Syria? Anyway, looking at Mexico and Switzerland, here's their table: Elaborating on what you said about gun ownership in Switzerland being "practically mandatory," every able male in Switzerland is required to serve a stint in the military, and most retain their gun when they leave, explaining the high gun ownership rate of 45.7%, almost the same as the percentage of males in the population.Mexico does allow private ownership of guns, but they do have a significant drug cartel problem, and as you note, there must be a significant source of illegal firearms that is probably the US. Mexico's claims of 15 guns per 100 residents must significantly understate reality.Once more, superficial comparisons of two wildly disparate countries tells us nothing about the effect of gun prevalence on gun violence prevalence. There's no puzzle. It's a big a complex world out there, and it's easy to find country by country circumstances that cloud statistical comparisons, but when you do the proper studies correctly the fact emerges that more guns translates to more gun violence. The murder rate in the UK is 1.0 per 100,000 residents, in the US it's 3.8. Their "knife violence problem" is dwarfed by our gun problem.--Percy

GDR, Jesus "being numbered with the transgressors" means and always has meant that being crucified is the punishment of transgressors which He was to suffer for His people. He died as a criminal. He's certainly not saying that His disciples are the transgressors because they want a sword; in fact clearly what is written says that HE is telling them to buy a sword, the idea came from Him and not them. His allowing them a couple of swords seems to be related to the upcoming change in circumstances after He is crucified and they hide out from the Jews who crucified Him.He talks first about how they needed nothing when they served Him, but He goes on to say "BUT NOW..." meaning things are now changing, I am now going to be crucified as a criminal... Because NOW things are going to change.Nevertheless two swords for the twelve isn't much so it's not as if He's recommending a lot of brutal self-defense, and overall I think you are right that He's talking more about the effect of creating division. However, that can lead to brutal consequences, can't it?I think it works as a defense of owning guns today even if we need a lot more restraint than we have right now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Cat Sci. Quibbling is often the coping mechanism of choice for many people. That was kind of the point I was making: you pick out one tiny flaw, and use it to argue that the whole dataset is bogus.On that same page, you can see that there have been over 1200 gun deaths so far in 2016. I suppose those numbers won't bother you either, because you can convince yourself that probably half of them were from BB guns, and the other half were probably old folks who had heart attacks because of the noise.

Actually other translations have Him saying that is enough. All through the Gospels we see that the disciples cannot get beyond the view that the messiah would militarily defeat their enemies, in this case the Romans. This whole thing is just another example of that mindset. When He says "that's enough" or "it is enough" when taken in the context of this particular story, or in the broader context of the whole Gospel, it makes sense to see it as Jesus just putting an end to the discussion. Well. in the first place it wasn't an actual whip but a bunch of "cords" that He had picked up.

quote:

---

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

---

It would seem to me that driving out the livestock and overturning all the tables would pretty much empty the place as people went about protecting their interests. I just don't see this as being the equivalent of running someone through with a sword. That question presumes that the Bible is to be read as Faith would understand it. I don't agree with that understanding at all. That god that you are talking about is not the one that I worship. I worship the God whose Word or wisdom was perfectly embodied by Jesus the Jewish Messiah. That God did not wipe out the entire planet. I don't know about a pacifistic Jesus. We only see Him the context of a first century Jew speaking to first century Jews. His one rule was that love rules. How do we apply that in the 21st century? It isn't easy and there is a great deal of ambiguity. However, the message is that ultimately the only way of defeating evil is by changing hearts, but in the meantime if you see a little old lady being mugged there isn't a lot of point in simply going and telling the perpetrator that he is loved until the you have put an end to the crime. In the larger context how does that look when it comes to dealing with ISIL? Not easy questions.I apologise if this is viewed as having veered off topic, but I do think it is also relevant to the discussion as it pertains to the mindset of gun ownership and the preparedness of people to actually use those weapons against another human.