Another day another mass shooting in America...
#121
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're not as prevalent nor are they entrenched and ordained in scripture though.
Secular intolerance is built mostly on blind ignorance and prejudice.
the none secular has the extremely powerful influence of an all seeing all powerful deity who will burn your **** for eternity if you don't obey their written edicts on same sex congress
once you remove the blind cow towing to these deities and there acolytes you are now dealing with the merely ignorant
As far as actual declared atheists are concerned the pool of ignorance recedes rather more rapidly we are probably more willing to accept that it exists in nature and ergo has a natural occurrence.
These proclivities are starting to be revealed in our very DNA.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486.
Secular intolerance is built mostly on blind ignorance and prejudice.
the none secular has the extremely powerful influence of an all seeing all powerful deity who will burn your **** for eternity if you don't obey their written edicts on same sex congress
once you remove the blind cow towing to these deities and there acolytes you are now dealing with the merely ignorant
As far as actual declared atheists are concerned the pool of ignorance recedes rather more rapidly we are probably more willing to accept that it exists in nature and ergo has a natural occurrence.
These proclivities are starting to be revealed in our very DNA.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486.
#122
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree, because widespread atheism and secular societies are a fairly recent thing. I did not say that all homophobia is by religious people, rather that the basis for it is. The Islam and Christianity are anti-homosexual at their cores, and that has been he case for centuries.
If your father drums it in to you that being homosexual is something wrong because the bible tells him so, then the fact that you later become atheist does not change the fact that the basis for that prejudice comes from the teachings of the church.
Attitudes take time to change, and this is the same reason women didn't get the vote until the 20th century, the two main religions in the world hold them in lower esteem.
If your father drums it in to you that being homosexual is something wrong because the bible tells him so, then the fact that you later become atheist does not change the fact that the basis for that prejudice comes from the teachings of the church.
Attitudes take time to change, and this is the same reason women didn't get the vote until the 20th century, the two main religions in the world hold them in lower esteem.
#123
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go
Although bisexuality was accepted as normal human behaviour in Ancient China,[40] homophobia became ingrained in the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China due to interactions with the Christian West,[41] and homosexual behaviour was outlawed in 1740
#124
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't be satisfied with that, Geezer. The west's influence upon China was so dramatic that it formed China's attitude towards homosexuals?! Nonsense! That's the opinion of one author and needs challenging. Why didn't China follow suit in the 60s and lift the lid on conservative attitudes toward sexuality like the west?
Homophobia would exist with or without 'religion'.
Homophobia would exist with or without 'religion'.
#125
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is well documented that China was tolerant of homosexuality. What do you think was the driver?
The influence of Western (Christian) ideology and interference, especially in the 19th century transformed China. Do you honestly believe that over a thousand years of tolerance of homosexuality ending and the increased influence of the Christian west is pure coincidence?
Lots of ancient societies tolerated homosexuality and women were venerated, it was only the rise of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that reversed those positions on a large scale.
The influence of Western (Christian) ideology and interference, especially in the 19th century transformed China. Do you honestly believe that over a thousand years of tolerance of homosexuality ending and the increased influence of the Christian west is pure coincidence?
Lots of ancient societies tolerated homosexuality and women were venerated, it was only the rise of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that reversed those positions on a large scale.
#126
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
It is well documented that China was tolerant of homosexuality. What do you think was the driver?
The influence of Western (Christian) ideology and interference, especially in the 19th century transformed China. Do you honestly believe that over a thousand years of tolerance of homosexuality ending and the increased influence of the Christian west is pure coincidence?
Lots of ancient societies tolerated homosexuality and women were venerated, it was only the rise of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that reversed those positions on a large scale.
The influence of Western (Christian) ideology and interference, especially in the 19th century transformed China. Do you honestly believe that over a thousand years of tolerance of homosexuality ending and the increased influence of the Christian west is pure coincidence?
Lots of ancient societies tolerated homosexuality and women were venerated, it was only the rise of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that reversed those positions on a large scale.
#127
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So despite Mao's revolutionaries going out of their way to ditch every other possible vestige of Western colonial influence they could think of, it had nothing at all to do with them being quite comfortable with the idea that the only part they clung on to was the homophobia? To paraphrase James's earlier reply, deep down you can't possibly believe that.
No, they became a 'communist' state. The old ways of Chinese culture were also swept away. What was left was obviously influenced by the more modern west as it certainly wasn't anything like what had gone before, they just rejected capitalism (ironically now returned and rebranded) and colonialism (also ironically which they have imposed on neighbours like Tibet).
Neither you nor James have offered an alternative mechanism by which homophobia became prevalent in a country where, for centuries, it was non existent. Attitudes certainly changed towards it after the West started to become more involved with China.
#128
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add, I don't think that this should descend in to a discussion about the evils or not of religion, this thread is about gun control, after all.
The source of his issue is less important than his ability to get hold of weapons that can vent his internal conflicts, IMO.
One is easier to fix than the other
The source of his issue is less important than his ability to get hold of weapons that can vent his internal conflicts, IMO.
One is easier to fix than the other
#129
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
No, they became a 'communist' state. The old ways of Chinese culture were also swept away. What was left was obviously influenced by the more modern west as it certainly wasn't anything like what had gone before, they just rejected capitalism (ironically now returned and rebranded) and colonialism (also ironically which they have imposed on neighbours like Tibet).
Neither you nor James have offered an alternative mechanism by which homophobia became prevalent in a country where, for centuries, it was non existent. Attitudes certainly changed towards it after the West started to become more involved with China.
Neither you nor James have offered an alternative mechanism by which homophobia became prevalent in a country where, for centuries, it was non existent. Attitudes certainly changed towards it after the West started to become more involved with China.
#130
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
Just to add, I don't think that this should descend in to a discussion about the evils or not of religion, this thread is about gun control, after all.
The source of his issue is less important than his ability to get hold of weapons that can vent his internal conflicts, IMO.
One is easier to fix than the other
The source of his issue is less important than his ability to get hold of weapons that can vent his internal conflicts, IMO.
One is easier to fix than the other
#131
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Agreed, barring the sort of medical advances that scientists have scarcely even begun to dream of, there will always be a small minority of nutjobs in the world who want to lash out violently against it. Limiting their access to the tools that allow them to do that should be the priority.
Firearms are an extremely convenient way to cause mayhem for those so inclined. In their absence the 'nutjobs' simply revert to alternative methods such as knives, swords, axes, baseball bats etc. to wreak their havoc.
Controlling firearms only inconveniences the sane and law abiding citizen, whilst having little effect on madmen or criminals, who by definition tend to ignore laws.
#133
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
Firearms are an extremely convenient way to cause mayhem for those so inclined. In their absence the 'nutjobs' simply revert to alternative methods such as knives, swords, axes, baseball bats etc. to wreak their havoc.
Controlling firearms only inconveniences the sane and law abiding citizen, whilst having little effect on madmen or criminals, who by definition tend to ignore laws.
Controlling firearms only inconveniences the sane and law abiding citizen, whilst having little effect on madmen or criminals, who by definition tend to ignore laws.
#134
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firearms are an extremely convenient way to cause mayhem for those so inclined. In their absence the 'nutjobs' simply revert to alternative methods such as knives, swords, axes, baseball bats etc. to wreak their havoc.
Controlling firearms only inconveniences the sane and law abiding citizen, whilst having little effect on madmen or criminals, who by definition tend to ignore laws.
Controlling firearms only inconveniences the sane and law abiding citizen, whilst having little effect on madmen or criminals, who by definition tend to ignore laws.
If you think he would have killed 49 people with a knife (and he actually shot 103 overall), then you are seriously deluded.
The general public do not need firearms, and they certainly don't need assault rifles.
#135
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
I'm not deluded, just pointing out the obvious that firearms are not the only means for causing harm, also that gun controls only control the law abiding, not the criminal. Even in the UK, where gun controls are among the toughest in the world, criminals still kill with guns. I'm certain their weapons are not licensed.
#136
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
I'm not deluded, just pointing out the obvious that firearms are not the only means for causing harm, also that gun controls only control the law abiding, not the criminal. Even in the UK, where gun controls are among the toughest in the world, criminals still kill with guns. It's certain their weapons are not licensed.
#137
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
I'm not deluded, just pointing out the obvious that firearms are not the only means for causing harm, also that gun controls only control the law abiding, not the criminal. Even in the UK, where gun controls are among the toughest in the world, criminals still kill with guns. It's certain their weapons are not licensed.
#138
Scooby Regular
It was remarked after the Dunblane massacre (an event that finally persuaded the UK up to simply ban all firearms)
That one of the reasons Thomas Hamiltion was able to carry out the shooting of so many little boys and girls (and teachers) over such an extended time, using so many bullets was the fact that the legally held guns he used were kept so well
Meticulously cleaned and maintained, all used at legal gun clubs etc, however the thought is that illegal firearms rarely are
They are kept in sub optimal conditions, often not maintained well, never fired accept when used in a crime - and hence unlikely to perform so well
That one of the reasons Thomas Hamiltion was able to carry out the shooting of so many little boys and girls (and teachers) over such an extended time, using so many bullets was the fact that the legally held guns he used were kept so well
Meticulously cleaned and maintained, all used at legal gun clubs etc, however the thought is that illegal firearms rarely are
They are kept in sub optimal conditions, often not maintained well, never fired accept when used in a crime - and hence unlikely to perform so well
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 20 June 2016 at 08:15 PM.
#139
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
It was remarked after the Dunblane massacre (an event that finally persuaded the UK up to simply ban all firearms)
That one of the reasons Thomas Hamiltion was able to carry out the shooting of so many little boys and girls (and teachers) over such an extended time, using so many bullets was the fact that the legally held guns he used were kept so well
Meticulously cleaned and maintained, all used at legal gun clubs etc, however the thought is that illegal firearms rarely are
They are kept in sub optimal conditions, often not maintained well, never fired accept when used in a crime - and hence unlikely to perform so well
That one of the reasons Thomas Hamiltion was able to carry out the shooting of so many little boys and girls (and teachers) over such an extended time, using so many bullets was the fact that the legally held guns he used were kept so well
Meticulously cleaned and maintained, all used at legal gun clubs etc, however the thought is that illegal firearms rarely are
They are kept in sub optimal conditions, often not maintained well, never fired accept when used in a crime - and hence unlikely to perform so well
The UK didn't ban all firearms, only handguns. It's a notable fact that whenever firearms have been strictly regulated (where no such regulation previousy existed) firearms' homicides tend to rise, sometimes dramatically. In the years following the handgun ban firearms homicide rates in the UK doubled.
Firearms, particularly military firearms, function perfectly well with minimum maintenance. This is a requirement. The limiting factor for firearms users is training or rather the lack of it.
#140
Scooby Regular
#141
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
The UK didn't ban all firearms, only handguns. It's a notable fact that whenever firearms have been strictly regulated (where no such regulation previousy existed) firearms' homicides tend to rise, sometimes dramatically. In the years following the handgun ban firearms homicide rates in the UK doubled.
Firearms, particularly military firearms, function perfectly well with minimum maintenance. This is a requirement. The limiting factor for firearms users is training or rather the lack of it.
Firearms, particularly military firearms, function perfectly well with minimum maintenance. This is a requirement. The limiting factor for firearms users is training or rather the lack of it.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm
I suppose it comes down to how you define 'strictly regulated'.
#142
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Crime Prevention Research Centre. Only in 2010 was the firearms homicide rate lower than in 1997 when the handgun ban came in.
#143
Scooby Regular
The reference to Hungerford was because
"A report was commissioned by the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre, which bans the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
So most mass killing weapons had already been banned because of a previous mass killing
"A report was commissioned by the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre, which bans the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
So most mass killing weapons had already been banned because of a previous mass killing
#144
Scooby Regular
Also the "crime prevention research centre" seems to be some bat **** conspiracy "think tank" promoting gun ownership
Please provide an actual link so I can verify your source
thanks
Please provide an actual link so I can verify your source
thanks
#145
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
The reference to Hungerford was because
"A report was commissioned by the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre, which bans the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
So most mass killing weapons had already been banned because of a previous mass killing
"A report was commissioned by the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre, which bans the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
So most mass killing weapons had already been banned because of a previous mass killing
Now you've jumped back to Hungerford from Dunblane, and another example of knee jerk legislation getting it wrong. The legislators intended to limit pump and semi auto shotguns to two shots only, but messed it up by limiting them to two rounds in the magazine, completely overlooking the round in the chamber. And without putting too fine a point on it, one of these in the wrong hands is very much a mass killing weapon.
Semi-automatic pistols and revolvers weren't banned until 1997, nor were bolt action rifles which are still legal. And the poor MP who was just murdered shows that legislation only limits the actions of the sane and law abiding.
#146
Scooby Regular
I jumped from Hungerford to Dunblane to demonstrate that the ultimate ban on mass killing weapons was culmative
Anyway please provide the link/source as requested
Thanks
Anyway please provide the link/source as requested
Thanks
#149
If you're like me, you can own a semi-automatic shotgun here in the UK on a Firearms certificate, NOT a shotgun certificate for bird control (crows, pigeons etc), if the Police Firearms agree with your reasoning and purpose. I own a Browning 5-shot 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun but could have bought a 12-shot..... People say the UK gun laws are really tough but in my experience I haven't had really any issue in obtaining something. I guess they potentially view farmers differently?
The only thing they REALLY don't like is a semi-automatic pistol and if you require one they will try to make you accept a revolver.
The only thing they REALLY don't like is a semi-automatic pistol and if you require one they will try to make you accept a revolver.
Last edited by LSherratt; 20 June 2016 at 11:30 PM.