American LDS and Guns

[Vanhin]

Yeah, and he made all sorts of proclomations and announcements and had all sorts of opinions expressed outside of that office. He wrote lots of books published by Deseret Book, and also lots of politically-themed books published by Bookcraft.

And again, yeah, once he moved from Apostle to President, he outright stopped a lot of the political stuff.

Draw whatever conclusions you wish about why this happened. The conclusion I draw is that humans get opinions that are either right or wrong, and EZB has a lot of published opinions.

LM

At the very least, this means there are and have been other more prominent LDS than us, who feel the way we do about the Constitution. Not that everyone has to feel that way just because Elder Benson did, of course.

Regards,

Vanhin

[NeuroTypical]

I believe that if anyone ever fires a gun with the intent to do harm in a critical situation they are as likely to harm or kill a friend as a foe.

I'm having a hard time reconciling that belief with what I've learned to accept as reality. It would seem that the laws of physics don't stop working in such situations. Nor would man's agency. By definition, if this belief were accurate, we'd see as many accidental shootings as intentional shootings in warfare or police action or violent crime.

No idea how such a belief could ever make it off the drawing board.

LM

[john doe]

Yes, generally guns only fire in the direction in which they are pointed.

[Maxel]

Yeah, and he made all sorts of proclomations and announcements and had all sorts of opinions expressed outside of that office. He wrote lots of books published by Deseret Book, and also lots of politically-themed books published by Bookcraft.

And again, yeah, once he moved from Apostle to President, he outright stopped a lot of the political stuff.

Draw whatever conclusions you wish about why this happened. The conclusion I draw is that humans get opinions that are either right or wrong, and EZB has a lot of published opinions.

I've always thought that, when he was called as the President, he received much more public attention, and his role as an Apostle changed somewhat (he was now the head Apostle, the living face of the Church that the world would see). In order to distance himself from anything too controversial (like his political and legal opinions) he changed his focus with his calling (as he was supposed to).

I actually think President Benson's calling to the role of President is what firmly solidified his political beliefs in the LDS culture and thinking. If he hadn't been called as a President, his would probably be as relatively unknown as Cleon Skousen or J. Ruben Clark, Jr. among the Mormons.

In any case, I thought you brought up a good point, LM.

[Vanhin]

Yes, generally guns only fire in the direction in which they are pointed.

Though, I did shoot at a steel chicken once with my AK, and the ball fractured and a piece flew back towards us and busted a window on my friends car. We made some serious adjustments to our shooting habits that day.

But yes, generally that is true... :)

Regards,

Vanhin

[hordak]

And yet Miami is infamous for its out-of-control murder rate. Such laws do not work unless they are stringently applied, and even then they are likely just to generate a bunch of lifers. The key is to change the hearts of the people, and laws don't do that.

In any civilized society, laws are the last resort to modify behavior. We are using them as a first resort, with the result that we are losing our freedoms even while our society decays around us due to lawless behavior.

Actually it reduced gun crime rates 30% in 6 years. But i do agree changing hearts and minds is the real key.

[Traveler]

I'm having a hard time reconciling that belief with what I've learned to accept as reality. It would seem that the laws of physics don't stop working in such situations. Nor would man's agency. By definition, if this belief were accurate, we'd see as many accidental shootings as intentional shootings in warfare or police action or violent crime.

No idea how such a belief could ever make it off the drawing board.

LM

When I served in the military over 60% of causalities during a firefight were from friendly fire. This included experienced and trained personal. What do you think would happen in a place where no one was experienced or trained?

For point of discussion: Here is a scenario. There have been several recent hostel actions in your area where guns have been fired. It is late at night and you hear an intruder in your home. You have a gun – what do you do? If you plan to use your gun I am very interested in how you plan to insure someone you care about does not get shot without getting yourself killed!

The Traveler

[Vort]

Actually it reduced gun crime rates 30% in 6 years.

I would be tickled to find this is true, but it sounds like statistical cherry-picking. Do you have a reference for this?

[nbblood]

When I served in the military over 60% of causalities during a firefight were from friendly fire. This included experienced and trained personal. What do you think would happen in a place where no one was experienced or trained?

I think this is quite frankly a myth. Having served over 18 years in the military and studied virtually every conflict imaginable, I know of no such statistics. Perhaps in a single, isolated engagement somewhere, but certainly not overall.

[Moksha]

In order to distance himself from anything too controversial (like his political and legal opinions) he changed his focus with his calling (as he was supposed to).

I imagine President Hinckley lent some needed control to loose cannons that could sabotage PR efforts, but we all know human nature and the foibles of politics.

[Traveler]

I think this is quite frankly a myth. Having served over 18 years in the military and studied virtually every conflict imaginable, I know of no such statistics. Perhaps in a single, isolated engagement somewhere, but certainly not overall.

were you ever in a firefight?

The Traveler

[hordak]

I would be tickled to find this is true, but it sounds like statistical cherry-picking. Do you have a reference for this?

Florida Department of corrections

Florida 10-20-LIFE -- Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences

[Vort]

Florida Department of corrections

Florida 10-20-LIFE -- Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences

Very cool. Am I correct in attributing the law's success as much to its apparently widespread announcement as to its actual existence?

[nbblood]

were you ever in a firefight?

The Traveler

Several. Does that matter?

Yes, I know things can get confusing. I know the chaos. I know what it's like when adrenaline and fear mix. I don't know anything about 60% of casualties from friendly fire. I assume it could happen in an isolated firefight. I'm not disputing that. But I've seen statistics from virtually every conflict and nothing I've seen back that claim up. The closest I've seen are statistics for accidental deaths. Those statistics usually contain deaths occurring from anything from vehicle accidents to friendly fire to sicknesses such as malaria. In WWI and WWII those numbers were tremendous. But they still did not come close to accounting for 60% of all killed.

You may have heard that somewhere. For an isolated period of time, it may be true. But collectively.....not hardly.

[BenRaines]

Traveler, I was taught to not shoot at anything that you did not recognize what or who it was. In the case of an intruder in the house I would announce in a very loud voice that I was armed and that they had better leave or I would do all I could to defend myself and my family.

If it is someone in my family they would yell loudly "Dad don't shoot". :)

Also taught to not place finger inside trigger guard until on target and ready to shoot. Avoids misfires in to my foot or leg.

Ben Raines

Edited December 3, 2009 by BenRaines

[Zechariah]

I guess non-American LDS are welcome to chime in as well. :)

Our scriptures affirm that the U.S. Constitution exists through divine intervention. In other words, it's practically scripture to Latter-day Saints. Here it is from the Doctrine and Covenants:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80)

The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, affirms the right of the People to keep and bear arms. This is an American heritage, which I believe our founders established for a wise purpose, and appears to be approved by God in our scriptures along with the rest of the Constitution as it stood in 1833.

So, my question is this. What do the latter-day saints here make of the right of the People to keep and bear arms? Is it important to protect that right, and why (or why not)?

Regards,

Vanhin

I believe, strongly, in the right to keep and bear arms, and in protecting that right, at all cost.

Now, if God wanted us to be disarmed, well, then I would acquiesce, but since I find ample scriptural support, particularly from The Book of Mormon, for belief in this right, and in defending our families, "even unto bloodshed," I will wait to hear it from the mouth of a prophet of God, if and when I should give up my firearms.

That doesn't mean I think others who don't want to keep guns around are wrong, of course. That is their choice. Fortunately, though, at least for now, Americans still have the right to arm themselves, if they choose, but there are those who want to see the citizenry disarmed, stripped of that right, and they are especially dangerous, even more, I would say, than the criminals, who certainly don't stand in line to turn in their guns when bans are enacted.

I, for one, am not interested in attempting to protect my home, family, or community, if the need comes, with rocks, shovels, pitch forks, kitchen knives, or baseball bats, against foes with firearms. No thanks.

[Vanhin]

I really appreciate everyone's comments, even the ones I don't agree with. Thanks.

Vanhin

[RanMan]

I guess non-American LDS are welcome to chime in as well. :)

Our scriptures affirm that the U.S. Constitution exists through divine intervention. In other words, it's practically scripture to Latter-day Saints. Here it is from the Doctrine and Covenants:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:77-80)

The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, affirms the right of the People to keep and bear arms. This is an American heritage, which I believe our founders established for a wise purpose, and appears to be approved by God in our scriptures along with the rest of the Constitution as it stood in 1833.

So, my question is this. What do the latter-day saints here make of the right of the People to keep and bear arms? Is it important to protect that right, and why (or why not)?

Regards,

Vanhin

What comes to my mind is the Book of Mormon and hoisting the standard to rally people to retake the country from those who would see it destroyed. There is definately a precedence in the scriptures for bearing arms to support the laws of the country / government. And I believe that is what the Constitution is talking about.

:)

[deals_dog]

The world would be a better place if no one had them. I don't believe that God is pleased because we have a 357 under our pillow. But in a place like the good old US of A where everybody seems to have a few of them I suppose that makes it alright. But remember what happens when ya children take them to school or your neighbor has a beef with the police and decides to kill a couple of them in a cafe. Just look at the number of deaths and murders you have in your country every year where guns have been responsible. Accidental shootings of family members etc. You may have all the amendments and constitutional rights and the freedom to carry weapons but you are not free from the consequences of nutters in your society who have the same right.

I did a two year mission in California, I have a great love for the American people. But the love of guns seems to be a bit unchristian, you know argue with interesting people and shoot them. I remember one lady we were teaching who found out her husband had been cheating on her, decided to shoot her husband when he came home, with the 357 stashed away in one of the draws in the kitchen. She failed and ended up in a mental institution for a few weeks. Or the elders quorum president who discharged his 45 in his lounge when playing with his hand gun. The nazi I visited that had machine guns and pickle barrels full of rifles because he didn't like black folks and Jews. The hells angels motorcycle gang with rifles strapped to their motorcycles. The domestic disputes where a husband killed his wife with a hand gun.

No thanks not for me

Edited December 3, 2009 by deals_dog

[Dravin]

guns have been responsible

You mean people right? Unless guns are either capable of acting on their own or somehow carcinogenic they aren't responsible for deaths, no more so than chemistry at any rate.

But the love of guns seems to be a bit unchristian, you know argue with interesting people and shoot them.

Of course I suppose if the lady had tried to stab her husband then an interest in knives, or if she'd tried to poison him, of chemistry is unchristian? The problem with your scenarios is not the guns but what they were used for, driving of cars is unchristian if the reason I'm using them is to run over people with. What if I'm into martial arts? People hit each other all the time, a particularly non-Christian thing (well excluding in self defense) to do.

Love of guns is unchristian only if:

1. Self defense is unchristian.

2. Hunting is unchristian.

3. Target practice/recreational shooting is unchristian.

Those would be the legal and acceptable uses for private owners of firearms.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Dravin

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

I support the amendment, however I also believe that we shouldn't be handing out guns to just anyone. due to accidental shots but more so for people that react on impulse and won't think before shooting at someone they believe to be an intruder but could be a family member, or maybe some kids playing a prank or another person who'd be scared off just as easily at the sight of a gun. and from what I've heard, it's more likely for you to be killed simply by owning a gun. not that I don't believe people shouldn't be allowed to have them, go ahead and do what you want. just saying though, if it were up to me, I wouldn't let myself have a gun because I have no idea how to use it.

and I don't like the idea of me ever having to kill anyone, even in self defense... I think I'm going to get myself a sword or something and learn how to use it... scare off the intruder, or if not, at least make them confused for a moment.

[hordak]

Several. Does that matter?

Yes, I know things can get confusing. I know the chaos. I know what it's like when adrenaline and fear mix. I don't know anything about 60% of casualties from friendly fire. I assume it could happen in an isolated firefight. I'm not disputing that. But I've seen statistics from virtually every conflict and nothing I've seen back that claim up. The closest I've seen are statistics for accidental deaths. Those statistics usually contain deaths occurring from anything from vehicle accidents to friendly fire to sicknesses such as malaria. In WWI and WWII those numbers were tremendous. But they still did not come close to accounting for 60% of all killed.

You may have heard that somewhere. For an isolated period of time, it may be true. But collectively.....not hardly.

Just to add i did research and found nothing that high ether except in the Gulf war 77 percent of Combat VEHICLES were lost to friendly fire but only 23% of the personal were affected by friendly fire 35 killed, 72 wounded.

Plus it seems the most casualties due to friendly fire come from artillery, cruse missiles and bombs drop in the wrong place.

That's comparing Apples and oranges

[hordak]

Very cool. Am I correct in attributing the law's success as much to its apparently widespread announcement as to its actual existence?

Not sure, your guess is as good as mine but i would assumes so. It did seem to have quite the marketing campaign.

[NeuroTypical]

The world would be a better place if no one had them.

Oh yeah. One needs only study history to learn of the halcyon days of safety and freedom back before they invented guns.

I don't believe that God is pleased because we have a 357 under our pillow.

So, are you just specifically against guns, or are you against the general concept of using deadly force in self defense?

But remember what happens when ya children take them to school or your neighbor has a beef with the police and decides to kill a couple of them in a cafe.

You mention two kinds of bad things. The first is due to negligent ownership of firearms. It's why we have a gun safe, and educate our kids about guns. The second is due to bad guys doing violent things, which is a condition of our mortal probation, guns or no guns.

Just look at the number of deaths and murders you have in your country every year where guns have been responsible. Accidental shootings of family members etc.

Tell ya what, I'll do that if you look at the number of times firearms have been employed to prevent crime. They're in the hundreds of thousands per year, according to books like More Guns Less Crime.

I did a two year mission in California, I have a great love for the American people. But the love of guns seems to be a bit unchristian,

I suppose I might agree with you there. Are you saying that anyone who supports 2nd amendment rights is a lover of guns? Isn't that a bit of an unchristian judgement? I mean, I don't love my guns, I just respect them as dangerous tools.

I remember [insert accidental discharge stories, murder stories, and stories about gun owners who just plain look scary to deals_dog]

No thanks not for me

I remember the epidemic of hundreds of rapes in Orlando that stopped overnight, after the media covered a few events in parks where women showed up to learn about conceal carry permits and excercise their rights to carry. Or the elderly guy driving home on a deserted road when some drunken baseball-bat-weilding jerks in a pickup truck tried to force him off the road - and then took off when he showed them his gun. I remember the guy who managed to put down a bear who attacked him in a residential neighborhood with his handgun. I'm a source of countless stories of people using defensive weapons for their intended purpose - defending themselves from bad guys.

Yeah, it's your choice deals_dog. If you don't want a gun, don't have one. But you do us a disservice by lumping us all together in the 'nutter nazi gun lover' bucket. Some of us just want to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

And yeah, we do have some support for these righteous desires.

"Not only should we have strong spiritual homes, but we should have strong temporal homes. ... There is wisdom in having on hand a year's supply of food, clothing, fuel (if possible), and in being preparing to defend our families and our possessions and to take care of ourselves. I believe a man should prepare for the worst while working for the best." Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 263-264.

"As for this people fostering to themselves that the day has come for them to sell their guns and ammunition to their enemies, and sit down to sleep in peace, they will find themselves deceived and before they know, they will sleep until they are slain. They have got to carry weapons with them, to be ready to send their enemy to hell cross lots, whether they be Lamanites or mobs who may come to take their lives, or destroy their property. We must be prepared that they dare not come to us in a hostile manner without being assured they will meet a vigorous resistance and ten to one they will meet their grave."

Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, Vol 1, P . 171 - 172, July 31, 1853

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - Jesus Christ, as quoted in Luke 22:36

"Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary;" Alma 48:14

"And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies," Alma 48:16

"And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion." Alma 43:47

"We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded." Doctrine and Covenants 134:11

"There is one principle which is Eternal, it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of their households whenever necessity requires. And no power has a right to forbid it."

-- Joseph Smith Jr. to his wife, Emma Smith, Carthage Jail, June 27, 1844. Source: "The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith," compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee,

Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1984, p. 611

"Peace be still, bury the hatchet and the sword, the sound of war is dreadful in my ear. [but] Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a bastard."

-- Joseph Smith Jr., journal entry, January 29, 1843. Source: "An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith," edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books, Inc. in association with Smith Research Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah,1989, p. 298

"Constitution of the U S say, "Habeus Corpus shall not be denied. Deny me the right to H Corpus and I will fight with guns, sword, cannon behind and thunder [afore] till I am used up, like Killkenny Cats."

-- Joseph Smith Jr., journal entry, June 30, 1843. Source:

"An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith," edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books, Inc. in association with Smith Research Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, p. 391

"Let me say to all of you, Learn to be true and faithful; and, instead of laying out your means for fine bonnets and fine shoes, and for coffee and tea, my advice to you is, if you can five or ten dollars, go and buy a good blanket, a gun, or a sword. And we want you, ladies, to provide yourselves with weapons, and with all that is necessary, and be ready to defend yourselves; for you won't always have your husbands to defend you."

Heber C. Kimbal, Journal of Discourses, [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 376.)

LM

Edited December 3, 2009 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Vanhin]

Good stuff LM. I really like this quote:

"There is one principle which is Eternal, it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of their households whenever necessity requires. And no power has a right to forbid it." (Joseph Smith Jr. to his wife, Emma Smith, Carthage Jail, June 27, 1844. Source: "The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith," compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee, Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1984, p. 611)

This is in harmony with my belief that the Constitution does not grant us this right, it appears that Joseph Smith felt that this was an Eternal principle - that the right and duty of men to protect their lives and the households is irrevocable. I concur.

At the same time, I look forward to the day when the Messiah reigns on the Earth, and swords are beat into blows and spears into pruning hooks, because the world no longer knows war.

Until then, I take my responsibility to protect my family and my freedoms seriously enough to arm myself.

Regards,

Vanhin