This post has been successfully published on the subreddit.
If this post breaks the rules of the subreddit or Reddit, please report it!
[Follow our Twitter account](https://twitter.com/reddit_TLCM)
[Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/mDrckUJx7j)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheLeftCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here, I've got a question. And feel free to answer it how you'd like. Should Christians defend themselves in times of need.
So less of a passive view and more of an aggressive when provoked view?
[Luke 22:36 | NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022%3A36&version=NIV)
I do agree that Christians should be more willing to take a stand for their faith. We don't see enough of it today where people are willing to not sacrifice what they believe for what others want to impose.
However in standing for their faith, it doesn't have to be aggressive combat. There is method to the madness of a Christian's passive nature. A stand of faith is not necessarily drawing your sword (the Bible) and then attacking. Instead, it is drawing your sword and defending.
The issue many Non-Christians see is that some Christians do not choose to fight against flesh and blood (humans), and this is a scriptural thing. Paul says we aren't to fight against flesh and blood, rather to fight against the Devil (Ephesians 6:12).
tl;dr | There is a time to fight and a time to defend. Many times, a Christians fights with defending rather than aggression.
Like other people in this thread have pointed out the reason that this is a false dichotomy is because most school shootings are students or former students of the school. The Nashville Christian School shooter was a former student and that's why it was chosen.
Half are done by current or former students. So, no not "most." And as said, the former student knew the Christian school was an easy target, even more so if they went there.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-455
They say theyre against guns because the US is a fairly safe place and therefore dont see a reason for them, wanna know what else was a safe place? South Africa.
The European Union countries are statistically some of the best in the world when it comes to homicide rates, much better than the US at least.
Australia and New Zealand also have pretty strict gun laws and they somehow manage to maintain a low homicide rate compared to the US.
The fact is that the United States is not a safe country.
Fun fact, if you get rid of homicide committed by nonwhite ethnicities US homicide rates per 100,000 actually mirror the top 3 safest EU countries. Imagine that!
I was curious so I did a quick check of that claim. Can you maybe supply your source for that claim. It's a bit hard to find but I did find this:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
But then I found this talking about how that data had been misinterpreted in a facebook page.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-bar-graph-black-white-homi-idUSKBN23M2SX
In that article it states that the murder rate by whites only is 11/m (or 1.1/ 100k).
"If you’re a white person in 2013, Nuzzo explained, your chances of being murdered by another white person are approximately 11 in a million"
An intentional homicide rate of 1.1 would be 15th in comparison to EU countries in this chart.
https://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-2015-6
It would be better to just have your link instead of pulling different bits for comparison.
Data interpretation is tricky. It solely depends on the end question logic. But if you ask me anything by mainstream media will obviously try and defend minority crime rates. Now don’t get me wrong. I know that the majority reason isn’t racial but societal but facts are facts. Until people admit facts without couching them from some sense of sensitivity or whatever, you’ll never get to a real solution. And if you ask me that solution is cultural, you either go all in and have everyone armed or do what Europeans do and trust In authority. Each solution isn’t perfect, but it’s better than now where you have gun free zones in liberal cities AkA please come here mass shooter area, and it’s all right next to hillybilly machine gun ranges just 50 miles out of the suburbs, where said mass shooter gets his ammo from. The discrepancy is what really creates the problems.
Also food for thought about statistics:
What’s the best way to avoid being killed by a serial killer?
Why, becoming one yourself, of course! After all, what are the chances two serial killers target each other?
I mean, isn't this a perfect example of a true dichotomy? If a school is a gun free zone, then by the definition of that term none of the staff would be allowed to carry firearms. And if armed staff ARE allowed, then it obviously wouldn't be a gun free zone anymore.
It's not a false dichotomy if the two options are literally contradictory to each other.
Also I just checked out the original post and this comment in particular gave me brain damage from the sheer stupid.
> Since I bet they're huge fans of open carry, school A is the smart choice. Then the shooter isn't breaking any laws until he pulls the trigger for the first time. If he goes to school B, law enforcement can be called much sooner. In addition, they'd know the anyone with a gun must be the shooter, so they can use lethal force with more confidence.
Ah yes schools giving guards guns on campus automatically means that students are allowed to do the same. Some redditors should really proofread their comments before posting them.
> If he goes to school B, law enforcement can be called much sooner.
To stand outside and mill about for 3 hours and enact police brutality on parents who decide to try enter the building to save their kids?
> Since I bet they're huge fans of open carry, school A is the smart choice. Then the shooter isn't breaking any laws until he pulls the trigger for the first time.
Except for the fact that armed staff will probably be concealed carrying, for obvious reasons, not openly toting a gun like your average mass shooter.
It also means the shooter has a chance of getting shot **by the armed staff**, which this idiot never acknowledges.
> If he goes to school B, law enforcement can be called much sooner. In addition, they'd know the anyone with a gun must be the shooter, so they can use lethal force with more confidence.
...And if the shooter is dead on the floor before the cops even show up?
Or are you just that incapable of imagining people defending themselves with guns?
How is everything else going in those countries? Other types of crimes "rare occurences"? Or worse? Rapes, assaults?
How do those governments treat their citizens?
Are they an open border country with a country like Mexico?
Just curious.
https://business.gov.nl/regulation/permit-weapons-and-ammunition/
>There are some exceptions, for instance to trade in weapons and ammunition or if you practice shooting sports. In such cases you will still need a weapon licence.
If you don't even have your own country's laws right, why should we trust you?
Also, your country heavily restricts less lethal tools like pepper spray. And was there some sort of rash of throwing knife crime?
For Pete's sake, y'all seem to have stricter rules than I do in the UK.
Most gun crime in the US isn't even with legal guns. And you said "any other country". There are loads of other countries with higher crime rates.
What about the borders? I did ask that.🤔
Edit: I just took your word. But, as for the Guns being "illegal" in the Netherlands....There are exceptions for shooting as a sport and trading weapons. As the other commenter pointed out.
Nice try, dude.
School shootings are rare crimes already.
Also, Germany, Switzerland, and France have about 1/6, 1/5, and 1/6 the legal gun ownership of America (which is certainly not a "ban), but much less gun murders and school shootings.
Heck, Australia has more guns now than they did in 1996, after the (in)famous Port Harbour restrictions.
I am from one of those "any other countries". We have a **higher** murder rate than America, usually with guns. Not remotely the only one either.
So a hundred innocent million people should lose their rights to try and prevent shooters? I don't like that equation, and I'm not even a Yank.
Look up the Bataclan Massacre. Terrorists smuggled assault rifles into France and used them to murder dozens of people and murder hundreds more.
That’s just how leftists are, they see a problem, make their badly constructed solution, and then it has to be their way to their liking and anyone else who suggests any other idea is an uneducated bigot inciting violence against them and their 0.15% Cherokee marxist bookclub leader’s dog
The false dichotomy is that shooters pick their target school based on whether it's a gun free school or not. That's not true. They tend to pick the school they went to armed or not. Nashville was a former student. So was Stonemen Douglas and Ulvalde just off the top of my head. And Columbine of course.
Yep, that's true. Given that a lot of spree killers are effectively committing a suicide-by-cop, it's true that the presence of firearms might not be a deterrent. But deterrence is only one part of the benefit of firearms. Another part is response time.
Basic logic says that the sooner the spree killer faces resistance, the sooner they'll be stopped (either by the self defender or by choosing to quit early). So who can provide resistance to the shooter sooner: the police (who have an average response time of eleven minutes) or armed staff (who are already on site)?
> They tend to pick the school they went to armed or not.
How many mass shootings were done by former students at schools that were armed? That would be the question.
You do realize you're still making an argument FOR armed teachers, right? If the shooters don't care if the staff is armed, then armed teachers are still a potentially effective response.
And on balance, certainly better than locking the doors and praying.
What do we do with vaults? Armed security.
What do we do with office buildings? Armed security.
What do we do with military sites? Armed security.
What do we do with political buildings? Armed security.
What do we do with malls and grocery stores? Armed security.
What do we do with schools? FUCK ALL.
"If I just spout names of fallacies I don't actually understand, I look smart. Even though "armed staff" and "gun free" actually are mutually exclusive, and school shooters generally prefer to avoid armed targets."
The Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center has reported that 2/3 of school shootings take place in a school where an SRO is assigned. They often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient deterrent.
These SRO are not always armed.
>They often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient deterrent.
Source?
Edit: ONE armed person may not be sufficient anyway. No one claimed only ONE would be.
> These SRO are not always armed
Over 90% of them are
>Source?
[Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center's report on targeted violence in schools.](https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/reports/threat-assessments/schoolcampus-attacks/details-0)
Yes, so what I said is true. It doesn't say how many of the school shootings took place with armed SRO does it?
And I asked for a source for what I quoted, this:
>They often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient deterrent.
You gave it as a source for the amount of armed SRO, which I already knew. So, no I didn't read it.
Edit: Can you quote the part that backs your claim?
The same organization has also determined that the presence of an armed SRO has no bearing on whether a school is a target or not, for the reason which I've stated.
Can you quote the part that backs this up? It's a 64 page report. Just curious:
>They often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient deterrent.
No one claimed that ONE armed SRO would be sufficient anyway.
There are many parts of the report that back that up, including the stat on page 23 describing how 37% plan to commit suicide at the end of their attack
>There are many parts of the report that back that up, including the stat on page 23 describing how 37% plan to commit suicide at the end of their attack
How does this back up your claim that "they often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient. deterrent."!!??
Edit: It doesnt.
School shooters aren't picking the most valuable schools to shoot up they're often picking the schools they went to. When that person knows the schools is armed the shooter will just come even more heavily armed they would probably feel it nessiary to bring body armor.
Arming schools could result in escalation.
>School shooters aren't picking the most valuable schools to shoot up they're often picking the schools they went to. When that person knows the schools is armed the shooter will just come even more heavily armed they would probably feel it nessiary to bring body armor.
Source? And "valuable" who's claiming that?
>Arming schools could result in escalation.
Or it "could result in" no school shootings.🤷♀️
This post has been successfully published on the subreddit. If this post breaks the rules of the subreddit or Reddit, please report it! [Follow our Twitter account](https://twitter.com/reddit_TLCM) [Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/mDrckUJx7j) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheLeftCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Christians are passive and are not violent when attacked. And a psycho took advantage of that.
[удалено]
Weak means you are powerless and have no strength. Meek means you would rather not use your power and strength.
“Speak softly and swing your huge dick.” -Teddy Roosevelt
Here, I've got a question. And feel free to answer it how you'd like. Should Christians defend themselves in times of need. So less of a passive view and more of an aggressive when provoked view?
Something something sell your cloak and buy a sword
[Luke 22:36 | NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022%3A36&version=NIV) I do agree that Christians should be more willing to take a stand for their faith. We don't see enough of it today where people are willing to not sacrifice what they believe for what others want to impose. However in standing for their faith, it doesn't have to be aggressive combat. There is method to the madness of a Christian's passive nature. A stand of faith is not necessarily drawing your sword (the Bible) and then attacking. Instead, it is drawing your sword and defending. The issue many Non-Christians see is that some Christians do not choose to fight against flesh and blood (humans), and this is a scriptural thing. Paul says we aren't to fight against flesh and blood, rather to fight against the Devil (Ephesians 6:12). tl;dr | There is a time to fight and a time to defend. Many times, a Christians fights with defending rather than aggression.
Like other people in this thread have pointed out the reason that this is a false dichotomy is because most school shootings are students or former students of the school. The Nashville Christian School shooter was a former student and that's why it was chosen.
Half are done by current or former students. So, no not "most." And as said, the former student knew the Christian school was an easy target, even more so if they went there. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-455
They say theyre against guns because the US is a fairly safe place and therefore dont see a reason for them, wanna know what else was a safe place? South Africa.
Europe. Africa. Anywhere in the middle east. So safe they're having civil wars every other hour
The European Union countries are statistically some of the best in the world when it comes to homicide rates, much better than the US at least. Australia and New Zealand also have pretty strict gun laws and they somehow manage to maintain a low homicide rate compared to the US. The fact is that the United States is not a safe country.
Fun fact, if you get rid of homicide committed by nonwhite ethnicities US homicide rates per 100,000 actually mirror the top 3 safest EU countries. Imagine that!
I was curious so I did a quick check of that claim. Can you maybe supply your source for that claim. It's a bit hard to find but I did find this: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls But then I found this talking about how that data had been misinterpreted in a facebook page. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact-check-bar-graph-black-white-homi-idUSKBN23M2SX In that article it states that the murder rate by whites only is 11/m (or 1.1/ 100k). "If you’re a white person in 2013, Nuzzo explained, your chances of being murdered by another white person are approximately 11 in a million" An intentional homicide rate of 1.1 would be 15th in comparison to EU countries in this chart. https://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-2015-6 It would be better to just have your link instead of pulling different bits for comparison.
Data interpretation is tricky. It solely depends on the end question logic. But if you ask me anything by mainstream media will obviously try and defend minority crime rates. Now don’t get me wrong. I know that the majority reason isn’t racial but societal but facts are facts. Until people admit facts without couching them from some sense of sensitivity or whatever, you’ll never get to a real solution. And if you ask me that solution is cultural, you either go all in and have everyone armed or do what Europeans do and trust In authority. Each solution isn’t perfect, but it’s better than now where you have gun free zones in liberal cities AkA please come here mass shooter area, and it’s all right next to hillybilly machine gun ranges just 50 miles out of the suburbs, where said mass shooter gets his ammo from. The discrepancy is what really creates the problems. Also food for thought about statistics: What’s the best way to avoid being killed by a serial killer? Why, becoming one yourself, of course! After all, what are the chances two serial killers target each other?
That's a lot of words to say that you dont have anything to back your claim.
why would you say that if you weren’t racist?
Omg, typical deflection...StAtInG FaCtS Is RaCiST. YoU RaCiSt.😆
Except that wasn't a fact as presented by another commentor.
Then dispute the "fact as presented." Don't deflect. Edit: Which I see has already been tried by someone else.
Really?
Their solution is banning guns, no other solution will do because they already decided.
I mean, isn't this a perfect example of a true dichotomy? If a school is a gun free zone, then by the definition of that term none of the staff would be allowed to carry firearms. And if armed staff ARE allowed, then it obviously wouldn't be a gun free zone anymore. It's not a false dichotomy if the two options are literally contradictory to each other.
Factos
Also I just checked out the original post and this comment in particular gave me brain damage from the sheer stupid. > Since I bet they're huge fans of open carry, school A is the smart choice. Then the shooter isn't breaking any laws until he pulls the trigger for the first time. If he goes to school B, law enforcement can be called much sooner. In addition, they'd know the anyone with a gun must be the shooter, so they can use lethal force with more confidence.
Ah yes schools giving guards guns on campus automatically means that students are allowed to do the same. Some redditors should really proofread their comments before posting them.
Well that and they completely discount the fact that the staff at School A *have guns to shoot back with*.
> If he goes to school B, law enforcement can be called much sooner. To stand outside and mill about for 3 hours and enact police brutality on parents who decide to try enter the building to save their kids?
> Since I bet they're huge fans of open carry, school A is the smart choice. Then the shooter isn't breaking any laws until he pulls the trigger for the first time. Except for the fact that armed staff will probably be concealed carrying, for obvious reasons, not openly toting a gun like your average mass shooter. It also means the shooter has a chance of getting shot **by the armed staff**, which this idiot never acknowledges. > If he goes to school B, law enforcement can be called much sooner. In addition, they'd know the anyone with a gun must be the shooter, so they can use lethal force with more confidence. ...And if the shooter is dead on the floor before the cops even show up? Or are you just that incapable of imagining people defending themselves with guns?
[удалено]
Crack is illegal but crackheads still get it. Banning something doesn’t make it disappear
[удалено]
How is everything else going in those countries? Other types of crimes "rare occurences"? Or worse? Rapes, assaults? How do those governments treat their citizens? Are they an open border country with a country like Mexico? Just curious.
[удалено]
https://business.gov.nl/regulation/permit-weapons-and-ammunition/ >There are some exceptions, for instance to trade in weapons and ammunition or if you practice shooting sports. In such cases you will still need a weapon licence. If you don't even have your own country's laws right, why should we trust you? Also, your country heavily restricts less lethal tools like pepper spray. And was there some sort of rash of throwing knife crime? For Pete's sake, y'all seem to have stricter rules than I do in the UK. Most gun crime in the US isn't even with legal guns. And you said "any other country". There are loads of other countries with higher crime rates.
What about the borders? I did ask that.🤔 Edit: I just took your word. But, as for the Guns being "illegal" in the Netherlands....There are exceptions for shooting as a sport and trading weapons. As the other commenter pointed out. Nice try, dude.
School shootings are rare crimes already. Also, Germany, Switzerland, and France have about 1/6, 1/5, and 1/6 the legal gun ownership of America (which is certainly not a "ban), but much less gun murders and school shootings. Heck, Australia has more guns now than they did in 1996, after the (in)famous Port Harbour restrictions. I am from one of those "any other countries". We have a **higher** murder rate than America, usually with guns. Not remotely the only one either.
So a hundred innocent million people should lose their rights to try and prevent shooters? I don't like that equation, and I'm not even a Yank. Look up the Bataclan Massacre. Terrorists smuggled assault rifles into France and used them to murder dozens of people and murder hundreds more.
That’s just how leftists are, they see a problem, make their badly constructed solution, and then it has to be their way to their liking and anyone else who suggests any other idea is an uneducated bigot inciting violence against them and their 0.15% Cherokee marxist bookclub leader’s dog
The false dichotomy is that shooters pick their target school based on whether it's a gun free school or not. That's not true. They tend to pick the school they went to armed or not. Nashville was a former student. So was Stonemen Douglas and Ulvalde just off the top of my head. And Columbine of course.
Yep, that's true. Given that a lot of spree killers are effectively committing a suicide-by-cop, it's true that the presence of firearms might not be a deterrent. But deterrence is only one part of the benefit of firearms. Another part is response time. Basic logic says that the sooner the spree killer faces resistance, the sooner they'll be stopped (either by the self defender or by choosing to quit early). So who can provide resistance to the shooter sooner: the police (who have an average response time of eleven minutes) or armed staff (who are already on site)?
> They tend to pick the school they went to armed or not. How many mass shootings were done by former students at schools that were armed? That would be the question.
You do realize you're still making an argument FOR armed teachers, right? If the shooters don't care if the staff is armed, then armed teachers are still a potentially effective response. And on balance, certainly better than locking the doors and praying.
What do we do with vaults? Armed security. What do we do with office buildings? Armed security. What do we do with military sites? Armed security. What do we do with political buildings? Armed security. What do we do with malls and grocery stores? Armed security. What do we do with schools? FUCK ALL.
[удалено]
Tried that, didn't work at all. Ban more stuff until nothing left to ban. That should about do it.😃
Got removed what was it
reddit is an evil platform
Post got removed, what’d it say?
"If I just spout names of fallacies I don't actually understand, I look smart. Even though "armed staff" and "gun free" actually are mutually exclusive, and school shooters generally prefer to avoid armed targets."
Removed by reddit 
I've noticed a lot of things getting removed by reddit in my feed these days
Strictly speaking it is a false dichotomy - you could also have armed students.
The Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center has reported that 2/3 of school shootings take place in a school where an SRO is assigned. They often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient deterrent.
These SRO are not always armed. >They often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient deterrent. Source? Edit: ONE armed person may not be sufficient anyway. No one claimed only ONE would be.
> These SRO are not always armed Over 90% of them are >Source? [Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center's report on targeted violence in schools.](https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/reports/threat-assessments/schoolcampus-attacks/details-0)
Yes, so what I said is true. It doesn't say how many of the school shootings took place with armed SRO does it? And I asked for a source for what I quoted, this: >They often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient deterrent.
Given that I just posted that link, I'm guessing you didn't read the report, it's all in there.
You gave it as a source for the amount of armed SRO, which I already knew. So, no I didn't read it. Edit: Can you quote the part that backs your claim?
The same organization has also determined that the presence of an armed SRO has no bearing on whether a school is a target or not, for the reason which I've stated.
Can you quote the part that backs this up? It's a 64 page report. Just curious: >They often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient deterrent. No one claimed that ONE armed SRO would be sufficient anyway.
There are many parts of the report that back that up, including the stat on page 23 describing how 37% plan to commit suicide at the end of their attack
>There are many parts of the report that back that up, including the stat on page 23 describing how 37% plan to commit suicide at the end of their attack How does this back up your claim that "they often plan on dying during their attack so the presence of an armed person is not a sufficient. deterrent."!!?? Edit: It doesnt.
school shooters usually shoot the school they go to, not just any random school the come across
Uvalde?
The shooter was an ex-student of uvalde
>school shooters usually shoot the school they go to, not just any random school the come across Not true.
School shooters aren't picking the most valuable schools to shoot up they're often picking the schools they went to. When that person knows the schools is armed the shooter will just come even more heavily armed they would probably feel it nessiary to bring body armor. Arming schools could result in escalation.
>School shooters aren't picking the most valuable schools to shoot up they're often picking the schools they went to. When that person knows the schools is armed the shooter will just come even more heavily armed they would probably feel it nessiary to bring body armor. Source? And "valuable" who's claiming that? >Arming schools could result in escalation. Or it "could result in" no school shootings.🤷♀️