There has been a recent church shooting that comes to mind where guns would have helped the congregation.
Are you saying black on white crime is not under reported?
I'm not saying you shouldn't have concealed carry in a church, that much seems to be advisable nowadays.
Are you saying black on white crime is not under reported?
You say this like it's indisputable fact. I won't change an existing belief like that without some evidence. That said, it's going to be damn hard to prove either side of that one. The absence of evidence does not prove the point, though.
Why would this be hard to prove? The FBI has kept these statistics for years.
A quick search came up with this. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
Read and think about how many more Whites live in America than blacks.
The statistics show that the 500 killings of white people attributed to blacks last year were the most since black perpetrators were determined to be responsible for the homicides of 504 white people nationwide in 2008. Last year's total was up 12 percent from the 446 recorded in 2014 and 22 percent from the 409 seen in 2013, a year that saw the lowest total this century and one that capped seven years of general declines in black-on-white homicides. Prior to that, 2006 saw the most black-on-white killings since 2001, with 573.
The 229 black lives taken by white killers last year, however, marked an even larger leap from 2014, jumping more than 22 percent from the 187 black victims killed by whites that year, which was the second-lowest total since 2001. The tally was last exceeded in 2008, when 230 blacks were slain by whites. The highest total in the last 15 years came in 2007, when 245 black people were killed by whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting
"The gunman, 26-year-old Devin Patrick Kelley of nearby New Braunfels, killed 26 and injured 20 others. He was shot twice by a male civilian as he exited the church. "
This wasn't even a year ago.
This activity has no place in a church. None.
Why not?
"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. 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.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
Luke 22:36
Everybody that isn't exactly like you is an enemy and you need to deal with them.
They are most likely not afraid of the japenese, buddhists, janaists, sikhs, chinese, shinto, taoists, celts, druids, pagans, zoroastrians.... you get the point, yes? That's ethnicities and religions from all over the world they're most likely not afraid of and it's not a complete list.
I'm confident that the list of ethnicity and religions they are afraid of is much smaller: Jews, blacks and islam.
It's a manipulative strawman argument to say that they are afraid of everyone who isn't exactly like them and possibly indicative of a simplistic worldview ignorant of the multitude of non-islamic religions, ethnicities and cultures that exist in the world.
Luke 22:36
First of all, this was at the last supper. Jesus knew the events that would transpire. Serious crap was about to go down and he meant to prepare them. That said, he didn't walk in with a crate of swords. Advising people to take up arms against a clear known enemy and using the Church as a training grounds are two drastically different things.
They are most likely not afraid of the... {religions/ethnicities}
I don't see how that ties in here. They never pointed at an enemy outside of the government itself, it wasn't really an ethnic or race thing.
It's a manipulative strawman argument to say that they are afraid of everyone who isn't exactly like them...
I would argue it's less about being OK with them than it is either not being aware or simply not caring. Would you say they'd be accepted if they were making more inroads into society? Don't misunderstand me, I don't think Islam--which is the enemy of the day--is a good thing for society. What I'm saying is that non-whites wouldn't be "accepted" regardless. Asians are only half way there and they make most of our stuff.
Would you say they'd be accepted if they were making more inroads into society?
Yes. I believe that if there were a massive migration of buddhists they would melt right in, at least after a generation or two. The political left has a point when it talks about the cultural melting pot. We did melt together into just "white people" or to a large degree even just "americans"/"europeans" but we once fought war with each other and even made racially charged propaganda about each other. I've heard leftliberals drawing comparisions with the current refugee crisis:
https://www.history.com/news/when-america-despised-the-irish-the-19th-centurys-refugee-crisis
I can even see why they draw the comparison, but I think it only works in a free market environment (because people who seek employment have to integrate at least well enough to get employed and that is quite a lot (muslims not learning the local language or refusing to work together with women at work would probably starve or fly to another country under a true free market. ). I'm convinced that the free market fosters voluntary integration whereas forced wealth redistribution fosters resentment and fragmentation.)
I don't see how that ties in here. They never pointed at an enemy outside of the government itself, it wasn't really an ethnic or race thing.
In that case wouldn't it had been more accurate to say that they consider the government and possibly it's supports as enemies? Because you said that "Everybody that isn't exactly like you is an enemy and you need to deal with them." which to me suggests to be against everything foreign.
I accidentally posted that comment before I was ready... whoops.
The militia information mill used to run on scanned pamphlets, homemade comb-tooth books, and conservative talk radio. Now it runs on YouTube, Facebook, and, still, conservative talk radio. The message is the same: You can’t trust the media. You can’t trust the government. Only we understand what’s really going on. And people are dangerous when they believe — like I did — that everyone else is either deceived or evil.
Naturally. Everybody else are dumb sheep, blindly following. Only we know the truth. You should follow us and do what we said, and don't ask questions.
On the other hand you have the people who watch massmedia and who've been convinced that women are so oppressed that they get payed 1/3rd less for the same work and that the russians implanted a president like in a shitty cold war novel and even more paranoid believing for an entire year that Trump is a madman who will start ww3 tomorrow either with north korea or russia.
That's at least on par when it comes to being paranoid, in my opinions it's far worse. I can't imagine what it must be like believing that everyone is oppressing you or that ww3 could start any moment, it must be really stressful and tiring.
That's at least on par when it comes to being paranoid
Agreed, though I wouldn't say its worse. The antithesis is not that everybody is oppressing you, but that everybody is out to get you or what you have. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me.
The best place tends to be somewhere in the middle, as with most things. There's a balance to be struck between mental health and awareness.
seems like he is still following that path, just with a different group.
and
It's absolutely intoxicating to indulge in your paranoia, to let this grow inside of you. Everybody that isn't exactly like you is an enemy and you need to deal with them. It's insane, literally indicative of mental illness.
In church of all places. This activity has no place in a church. None.