PaulS

Indigeek, Their fear stands in the way of them questioning their 'truth' and from seeing a different perspective. You have pushed throught that barrier. "Confidence comes from not always being right, but from not fearing to be wrong". Enjoy your journey and time here. Cheers Paul

I don't actually seeing this person making an argument for 'the other side'. In fact, I see these articles as affirming what the majority here are saying - gun culture in America is ridculous, too many people have guns, the wrong people seem to easily access them and commit mass murder. The author argues along the lines that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well of course. I have never seen a firearm lift itself off the bench and shoot somebody. However, when you have such ready access to weaponry one seems to in the US, it's no flippin' wonder that "people kill people"! We all know there are many facets to the gun control issue, but whilst you are all waiting for this massive mindset swing away from firearm ownership and better mental health, better support and identification of at-risk persons, it seems to me a very logical and easy to implement short-term solution that will have an immediate impact (see Australian statistics posted earlier) is to remove and ban from society military-type weapons, rapid-repeating weapons, and handguns. As for some specifics from the first article itself - the author doesn't seem to have approached the matter in a balanced frame of mind: He says that if guns were eliminated from the US, and no weapon substituted, then the murder rate would remain roughly the same. Hello? Of all US homicides, 60% are committed by firearm (source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list). How on earth would the statistcs remain the same! He incorrectly states that the number of firearms per person between Canada and the US is similiar. Wrong - The US has 88 guns per 100 people whilst Canada has only 30.8 per 100 (source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country). He calls firearms a 'symptom' and not a cause. We all know there's merit to that but we're facing one pretty blinking lethal symptom here! He incorrctly asserts that if it rerally was firearms that caused murder then places like Switzerland, Israel & Norway would have murder rates similiar to the US. Yet these countries are well and truly less armed than US citizens, so what is he talking about? Switzerland - 45 guns per 100, Israel 7.3/100, Norway 31.3/100 (source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country). It seems to me this guy is either deliberately playing loose with the truth to make his argument, or he is simply ignoring the data. An argument from 'the other side' - it certainly seems so!

Does anybody know if any other country in the world enshrines the 'right to bear arms' in its constitution? From what I can see, only Mexico (which also says no military firearms in domestic possession) and North Korea (but theirs is more about arming the populace against an outside country). The US seems to pretty much standout alone on this fascination with possessing firearms, and you happen to be one of the highest western countries with homicide rates. I don't think it is just coincidence. These words from an article in the Huff Post sum it up for me: I'll tell you how. It's because a man walked into a school with at least one gun and shot and killed nearly 30 people. Nearly 20 children are among the victims. One man. With a gun (or two). I don't know how he got his weapon(s) and to be frank, I do not care. Because after seeing similar scenarios play out over and over again, in schools, movie theaters and malls, I'm ready to throw the 2nd Amendment out the f*cking window. Someone's "right to bear arms" is not more important than a child's right to grow old enough to get to middle school, have her first kiss, see Santa or light the final candles on the Menorah. Having access to a gun cannot take precedence over the safety of our schools. It simply can't. The answer isn't to wrap our schools in barbed wire and turn them into prisons with pretty murals on the wall and jungle gyms. The answer is to stop ignoring the fact that the availability of guns in this country is literally killing us.

Karen, Whilst Joseph can look after himself, I have to say that I don't agree with your sentiment that he should refrain from debating this issue or expressing his views like the rest of us here, and I certainly don't agree with your put down that he is not being progressive, moral, and/or intelligent. We all have different opinions on a range of things and no single position is the 'right' one, as I understand PC and all that it entails. Clearly I don't agree with much of Joseph's view on this matter, but I am glad for his arguments and counterarguments. If nothing else, it helps me understand another's views and how perhaps we can come up with solutions that will see better results. I see you having a big battle in the US with those in favour of firearm laws as they stand, and I don't think you will succeed by simply trying to block them out of the dicussion and over-rule them. Don't let it ruin your Christmas. Cheers Paul

In Australia the test is pretty high to obtain a firearm. However, once you have obtained the licence legally, there are no further checks or ongoing monitoring. So if in 10 or 15 years time the owner develops mental health issues, they still have their guns. There's also the access issue - The firearm owner may not be mentally unwell, but what about family members, housemates, neighbours, who might be able to access this guns.

I think it is relying upon mental health services to identify these potential killers. I could be wrong, but I'm sure I have had a picture in the past that many of these people (Tim McVeigh, The Washington Sniper, and others) seemed quite normal to everyone around them, until they snapped.

Too true, George. At the end of the day, most people who attempt to commit suicide (I would suggest all) are not in a healthy state of mind and clearly are making a decision they might not otherwise make if their head was in a better place. Access to a firearm ensures the job is done, rarely with any degree of failure. Determined suicidees will still find a way I guess, but the data speaks for itself (IMO) that restricted access to firearms has resulted in a reduced rate of suicide in Australia, as it also has resulted in a dramatic reduction in homicide. My last post left off the other graph I thought I'd put there for some reason (my fault, not the system, of course). Whilst the homicide by firearm rate has of course diminished (less guns, less chance to kill by gun), the actual murder rate as a whole has severely dimished too since the introduction of stricter guns lasw between 1988 and 1996: Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)

It has been pointed out to me that the statistics I posted earlier aren't a reasonable measure of the effectiveness of a gun ban, and they aren't, in isolation. Of course if there are less guns then it stands to reason that there are going to be less firearm suicides and less homicides by firearm, but one would expect people will still find other ways to commit suicide and other ways to kill others, so removing guns perhaps just transfers the means by which people commit these acts. A more reasonable measure would be to see if suicide rates and homicide rates have decreased since our stricter gun laws in Australia came into effect (1996). These were the best stats I could find: SUICIDE RATE (%) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 MALES 19.8 20.3 18.8 17.7 16.8 16.5 13.6 13.9 16 14.9 FEMALES 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.3 3.8 4.0 4.4 4.4 (Source - Australian Bureau of Statistics) I don't know if suicide rates were decreasing before the new gun laws in 1996, but as this data shows, they have certainly been decreasing since then. (Edit - for the life of me I cannot get this table to align correctly. I hope though you can see that overall the suicide rate has been on the decrease since 2000 at least). Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003 5.2 (Source - Australian Institute of Criminology). I think everyone can see that there was a dramatic decline in the homicide rate after about 1987. The gun laws I have been referring to to date, the Howard Gun Laws, were introduced in 1996. However I hadn't highlighted that one of our more popuous states (Victoria) introduced some tighter gun controls in 1988. I say this because that perhaps may influence the commencement of this severe decline in homicide by firearm that we see the graph demonstrating commencing around that time.

I don't know about before and after the Howard Gun Laws, Dutch, but the below shows that the prevalence of burglary in Australia in 2003-2004 is much the same as America. The other two graphs do show the dramatic impact on homicide and suicide that the Howard Gun Laws (introduced 1996) had. By far the greater good in my opinion - and I was one of those that had to hand in some guns. Source - http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/property%20crime/burglary.html Source - http://guncontrol.org.au/

G'day Ed, and welcome. I am very happy for you that you were able to step back from the fundamentalism but still find relevance and a community to be involved in. All the best. Paul

Another thing George, accurate use of a handgun actually requires a fair bit of practice. Yes, a teacher may have been able to defend themselves but unless they are capable of killing (even in self-defence) and capable of hitting their intended target first or 2nd shot, then possessing a handgun may actually not just be a waste of time, but more than liekly it is a risk in a number of ways. For the one-in-a-million chance that a person may need it for self-defence, there's the increased risk of theft, accidental discharge, misuse, the gun being used against you, not to mention the encouragement of everyone going armed because they think somebody else might shoot them because they have a gun. What Ron said about the constitutional right to bear arms being developed in the days when one could only carry out this sort of atrocity by carrying 30-odd flintlock rifles around with them, makes a lot of sense. Rapid fire, self-loading firearms weren't even a blip on the rader then, let alone the thought that another person actually would go beserk shooting dozens of inncoent people.

Joseph, From an Australian perspective, banning handguns is effective because there's less of them. To own a handgun here you must belong to a gun club and you must keep it secured in a gun safe. Also, you are only allowed to carry it directly to and from home to club and back. I think in our situation it's a lot harder for crims to make guns than it is for them to make and distribute drugs. To your second question, it is illegal to have firearms for self-defence in Australia but funnily enough, we don't have a lot of concern about people attacking us or our home and needing firearms to defend these. Maybe it's a culture thing. Maybe the home of the brave and free is that dangerous that you do all need to be armed up. Cheers Paul

Alan, I think whatever works for people and if they take meaning away from some event that asists them or provides them with a useful purpose, then all power to them. Just being technical for a second though, there is no mention of three wise men in the bible - that is there is no mention of there being three of them as opposed to two or twenty. Cheers Paul

My library here offers an electronic book (and audiobook) service where just like hard copies, you can loan them for free for a certain period. Just download them and return by the due date or they cancel anyway. Perhaps your libraries may offer a similiar service?

In April 1996 Australia suffered it's worst massacre when 35 people at a historical tourist site were gunned down in cold blood by a lone male. The Government banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavily tightened controls on their legal use. The government initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised $500 million. Funnily enough, this quote from Wikipedia - "After discovering that the Christian Coalition and US National Rifle Association were supporting the gun lobby, the Government and media cited their support, along with the moral outrage of the community, to discredit the gun lobby as extremists. May assault weapons, handguns, and automatic/semi-automatic weapons be banned sooner rather than later, everywhere.

Hi Dusktilldawn and welcome, As a fundy for the first 19 years of my life, and an atheist/agnostic for the next 22, 3years or so ago I revisited Christianity predominantly to put it to bed properly (through reasoning rather than intuition) yet found PC and began to think there is room in my life for some of this (but not the "you must be saved by accepting Jesus" or the "there is only one truth" type stuff). I am now somebody who sees value in much of what Jesus is alleged to have taught and in that sense I am at least prepared to entertain the notion that he may have been on to something. I've not found God myself, but there's seems alot to be said by people who feel they are onto something. For me it's worth contemplation anyway. I hope you enjoy it here and find some of the answers to fill in that blank concerning worldviews. Enjoy. Cheers Paul

I'm afraid I can't help Ron, being in Australia and all. I hope somebody can provide soem criticing of it. Their website says a book and the DVD will be released next year - I've registered to be kept in the loop as to when they are avaliable. Cheers Paul

Welcome, David. I hope you enjoy it here and perhaps find your own 'new christianity' if that is what suits. Cheers Paul

As opposed to "Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter" released recently. I'm not sure that one was particularly accurate about Lincoln's activities. Mildly entertaining though.

Skinker, Knowing Joseph and the other moderators on this site, I doubt very much you were banned because Joseph (or any other moderator for that matter) thought you weren't fit for PCs to hear. Similarly, without knowing the exact circumstances I am confident that Joseph wouldn't use his authority in such a way simply so our PC forums wouldn't be upset with the likes of you and the free expression of your point of view. I for one am quite happy to be upset by another person who holds the one and only truth as revealed directly to him by the one and only true God. In fact, I have communicated with several of these people over the years, and I always find their views......interesting. Personally I have no issue with you posting your beliefs, providing you post in accordance with the guidelines of this community. Should I or others wish to read, consider, and/or debate your beliefs, then we will I guess. But as a suggesstion, one can easily obtain a free web site and blog these days - have you considered setting up your own website and forum with your own rules and with you as your own moderator, whereby you are free to share this message with all and sundry whom may wish to read about it? Cheers Paul PS - Maybe I do seem a bit facetious in my opening. I am partial to this forum, its members and what it has offered me in the past and what I hope it to offer in the future. Somebody coming on here telling us we all have it so wrong and that we need to listen to them and them only, frankly, gives me the willies, to put it politely. As an ex-fundy who has had 'the truth' rammed down my throat from birth, could I maybe suggest to you that if indeed you do genuinely wish to connect with other Christians to help them better understand what you say God has directed you to share, maybe approach the matter without putting down people and belittling where they are on their journey in life.

One little one that jumps out at me concerning Christmas, is the conception of a child without any male ######. That to me seems a little strange . Seems to me that if one is convinced a woman can conceive without male ######, issues about stars aren't going to get much of an airing. Cheers Paul

It's not just the absence of declared war, Skinker, death caused by violence as a percentage of all deaths has declined dramatically over the centuries. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. Similarly, the murder rate of medieval Europe was over 30 times what it is today. And there are more chances of Americans dying in a bathtub (one in 950,000) than in a terror attack (one in 3.5 million), according to a paper published by John Mueller and Mark Stewart. Yes, there are millions starving as a result of overpopulation and under-resourcing, which is not all suprising when the world is divided up into countries and one country's problems are its own. I agree that territorial control influences or has influenced these situations in some circumstances, but by most measures the world really is heading in the 'right' direction IMO. Cheers Paul

In this chapter, the first in Part 2 - There's More to Morality than Harm & Fairness, Haidt addresses how morality is indeed influenced by culture. Haidt points to a study citing WEIRD people (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, & Democratic) which demonstrates that these people are actually the 'outliers' in the world of human nature and are the least typical, least representative people you could study to make generalisations about human nature. Very eye-opening when you consider that's the situation most of us here, come from. Haidt compares WEIRDs against cultures such as East Asians and identifies a distinct difference in the way the two cultures think and subsequently how their morals are developed. WEIRDs see the world full of seperate objects, rather than relationships, which is the opposite to how East Asian cultures tend to see the world. An excellent demonstration of this was when asked to write twenty statements conmmencing with the words "I am..." Americans wrote about their own internal psychological characteristics (I am...happy/outgoing/interested in jazz/etc) whereas East Asians were more liekly to list their roles and relationships (I am...a son/a father/ and employee of Fujitsu/etc). Haidt states that this difference in way of thinking (WEIRD way of looking at things in isolation vs the East Asian way of looking at things in relationship) accounts for why philosophers such as Kant & Mill have mostly generated moral systems that are individualistic, rule-based, and universalist - Haidt suggests that's what you need to govern a society of autonomous individuals. But holistic thinkers in the non-WEIRD cultures are prone to writing about morality as a variety of relationship-specific duties and virtues. Basically Haidt says that westerners hold to a morality that protects individuals and individual rights, which doesn't work in non-WEIRD cultures where morality is more sociocentric, placing the needs of the group often ahead of the needs of individuals. Helping to make these differences apparent, are such studies referenced by Haidt as that conducted by Richard Shweder which identified three major clusters of moral themes - the ethics of autonomy, community, and divinity. Each of these is based on a different idea about what a person really is. Pointedly (to me anyhow) the ethic of autonomy (placing individuals first and foremost with wants, needs and preferences) is dominant in Western seclar society but outside of this culture the other two moralities come into play - community (people are first and foremost members of larger entities such as families, tribes, nations etc) & divinity (people ar etemporary vessles within which a divine soul has been planted). Haidt experiences exposure to these additional moralities when living in India for three months. There he adjusted to and learnt about the culture but more specifically, gained empathy and began to 'feel' such morality. Haidt begun to understand why in a community where dirt and filth is prevalent, why that culture puts such an emphasis on cleanliness before eating and in other customs. I began to see why these rules were required, such as always greeting someone with your right hand (as they used their left hands to deal with toilet practices) and why breaching these rules was more than just offensive, but was a threat to the health and wellbeing of the communtiy. Haidt explains in depth how different circumstances and culture affect how people view morally important matters. Essentially, he's making the point that there can be more than one truth, more than one morality, quite simply because there is more than one particulalr type of community or country. He quotes Shweder to make the point - "...there is no homogeneous 'backcloth' to our world. We are multiple from the start". One last thing in this chapter that Haidt address is the moral matrices that we encounter. Haidt explains how he sees many moral matrices coexisting within each nation. Each matrix providing a complete, unified, and emotionally compelling worldview, easily justifiable by observable evidence and nearly impregnable to attack by arguments from outsiders. Subsequently people find it difficult to consider the possibility that there might really be more than one form of moral truth, or more than one valid framework for judging people or running a society. I can't help agreeing with him and now finding myself identifying that everywhere. Apologies to my friends here for the lateness of kicking off this chapter. It may seem silly that I haven't had the time to address one simple chpater of a book, but as the cliche goes I have hardly had time to scratch myelf recently. I promise to try harder! Cheers Paul

G'day all, Just putting my hand up to start the Chapter 5 thread on Monday. Cheers Paul

Just for information, I've recently started listening to the podcast "Point of Inquiry" and their podcast dated 20 March was with none other than Jonathon Haidt discussing The Righteous Mind. As a result of listening to their podcast I've joined Audible.com (a site for audiobooks) and downloaded my first book free - The Righteous Mind. I haven't been reading lately due to an increased workload and a fair bit of travelling - hence the audiobook and a hope of being able to participate in this dscussion soon. Cheers Paul