Synagogue Shooting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, you are using a totally misrepresented point of mine to present a general topic.
 
Sorry, I haven’t even really read your posts. I really am presenting a general idea.
 
I have, and it seems you are saying only the pope deserves protection. If that is not what you are saying, I apologize and would ask you to rephrase so that maybe I can understand.
 
Roseeurekacross, you read WAY more into the words I said than what I actually wrote. And your condescending tone just makes me want to answer you in 1st grade spelling and terminology. There is no straw man and I do understand the term rocket science… sorry to disappoint you.

Now, to answer your question without running to google or any place else. Although I don’t have a degree in Swiss Guard history, nor have I taken Swiss Guard 101, I do know when and why they were formed, that 187 of them were killed in I think it was 1527 protecting one of our popes. I have read about the modern Swiss Guard and about their weapons and how they are chosen. But what does all of this have to do with anything? Talk about a straw man!

No, I never did try to prove anything by comparing anything to anything. You show me where in my first post I did and I will acknowledge and apologize to you. All I did was make a statement of fact about your statement. You are the one that has made a big something out of a simple general fact I stated.
 
13pollitos said:
Why is guarding the pope acceptable but guarding babies getting baptized, families, parish priests, or bishops not? Are armed police officers or security guards acceptable?
Click to expand...
Yes, professional guards that are armed would be acceptable, not everyone one in the congregation.
 
Thanks! I can agree with this.

Edit:

What about in places where this isn’t available? There are times when cities can not afford to assign an officer and a parish can not afford to pay one. Those areas deserve to have protection as well, and often those are areas that are the most dangerous or remote.
 
Last edited:
As a practical matter, the Pope is a public figure, not to mention a head of state and the head of one of the largest religions in the world. The odds of the Pope being targeted are many times higher than someone attending a church in most Western cities. This is like asking “If the President gets a Secret Service detail, why doesn’t the pizza delivery guy?” It’s not that the Pope is more important, as a person, than any other person in the world, it’s that he is at much greater risk of being assassinated than almost all people except those of similar status.
 
Tell that to the pastors and people who have had this happen in their places of worship. Tell that to the priests in Mexico that are disappeared and/or killed.
 
It’s not just Christian churches that have been targeted. This synagogue was. Mosques have been. A few years back the Sikh temple was the target. It’s not uniquely American either. It happens around the world.
 
The issue isn’t why does the Pope or President get a security detail. The issue is why can’t individuals protect themselves. A particular individual may face a much greater risk to his safety on a daily basis than a Pope or President. Why can’t an individual asses his own risk and protect himself as he sees fit?
 
I making a pretty cold risk assessment to be sure, and certainly the risks are much higher in some parts of the world. But in the developed world, the risks of dying from an act of violence, and in particular from a terrorist act are exceedingly low. If you’re a church or a synagogue in Iraq, I think it makes a great deal of sense to have armed people. In, say, Blaine, WA, not so much.
 
What about the people in Charleston or Texas? They were in a church and killed in a mass murder. It isn’t just terrorist threats that are an issue. People can have personal threats that are just as dangerous.
 
I used to think so as well. But that just doesn’t seem to the the case anymore. Between school shootings (I am a teacher) and church/place of worship shootings, it sure seems that the common people are at greater risk than you are admitting.
 
The odds are still very low. Extent of coverage of violent acts really doesn’t mean any significant increase in the likelihood of any individual being more likely to be a victim of a violent act.
 
Who decides what ‘very low’ is? I haven’t been in a car accident in over twenty years but I still wear my seat belt. I’m more likely to die in a car wreck than a shooting but I still drive a car.
 
And so are the odds someone will actually get close enough to the pope or president. That is why there needs to be some way to defend ourselves. We don’t have agents available to act as a buffer. It takes time for police to respond once called. In a very short amount of time, a lot of people can be hurt or killed.
 
It’s not a matter of decision, it’s a matter of statistical likelihood. You can’t get around it, most people do not die violent deaths. If you really wanted to reduce early mortality, more money into heart disease and cancer research would pay much higher dividends in extending life that paying for buying a lot of guns to give to parishioners.

Violent deaths of any kind aren’t even in the top 15 causes of death:


The odds of being a victim of a violent shooting are about 1 in 11,125. The odds of being murdered are about 1 in 229.

www.businessinsider.com

The odds that a gun will kill the average American may surprise you

Firearm assaults kill about 13,000 Americans each year, while all forces of nature kill about one-tenth as many people in the US annually.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

I know these events are shocking and horrifying, and in no way am I trying to minimize the impact of such incidents. But let’s be clear here, you are many times more likely to die of an accident.
 
Yeah, right… O.K. Roseeurekacross.

YOU said, “It is a very sad state a country has gotten itself into when people have to carry weapons while worshipping God”.

I merely pointed out in my first post the FACT that the smallest country, the Vatican, has the Swiss Guard who have carried weapons while God is worshipped for the last 512 years. That’s it. That was what I said.

YOU then brought everything else in. I said nothing incorrect in my sentence that the Vatican has used the armed Swiss Guard for 512 years while people were worshipping God.

I did not compare it to any shooting anywhere, I did not ask anyone their pedigree as to their knowledge of the history of the Swiss Guard and I did not ask anyone if they really knew what the term rocket science meant. YOU are the one that brought up all kinds of stuff from left field and hung it onto my original post. Can’t talk to someone who does that. Done here, have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
There’s a difference between a public figure like the Pope…President…Royalty etc being protected than ordinary citizens…that’s not to say they shouldn’t be protected…I can’t speak for Roseeurekacross but I believe she comes from Australia where they probably don’t even think about having armed guards at not only churches but anywhere that people gather as guns are not part of their culture…as is the same in most other western countries…so just as many people in other countries can’t understand why people in the US need guns for self protection…so here in the US many people think just the opposite
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top