Orlando shooting

[The Folk Prophet]

@Just_A_Guy I understand that he wasn't directly correlating the judgment thing. It is the thoughts that seems missed, as a whole, (and, I felt, implied in the article) that I am addressing.

Some other things he said that I think are mistaken:

"There is no dividing line between technical sinners (good, church-going folks who make inconsequential mistakes now and then) and real sinners."

This is a very progressive, liberal sort of thing to say and I find it problematic. While I certainly understand the principle, the expression is dangerous. I do not agree that the faithful, hardworking, church-going, tithing paying, service project attending Latter-day Saint who gets overly annoyed at his children and raises his voice a bit when he shouldn't have is on equal footing with those partying in Sodom. Of course, we don't know that everyone at the club was on equal footing either, or that any one of them was a sinner at all. But the concept that there is no line is, in my opinion, mistaken. There is a line. A very, very distinct, clear, obvious line. We do ourselves a disservice by denying that fact for the sake of political correctness and the effort to not offend or hurt anyone's feelings.

"Who are we to claim sight where God Himself is blind"

I find this particular statement particularly egregious. The scriptures do not agree, not by teaching nor by allegory. God is not blind to sin.

"I want everyone who has been saddened by this horrific crime to know that there is no hesitation, no asterisk, no qualification in my response to it,"

I think denying the asterisk is a major, major problem, and once again, a disservice for the sake of political correctness. The asterisk is key. It matters. If we cannot see these calamities as a call to repentance then wo upon us! The asterisk, once more, is implicit throughout the scriptures. Calamity befalls the wicked. The righteous prosper in the land. We know that this isn't black and white, yes. The sun shines on the righteous and the wicked as well as the rain, and the righteous have calamity befall them and the wicked are often prosperous. But we should be able to easily see the big picture idea (calamity for wickedness, signs of the time, prophetic warnings, etc.) while also clearly maintaining compassion, non-judgement, etc. The removal of the asterisk is an attack by Satan to blind us. God...is...not...blind, and would not blind us. Satan and his concepts bring darkness and blindness. Satan would have us ignore the eternal perspective and disregard that perspective in favor of no offense. The eternal perspective is the asterisks.

[Guest Godless]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Hoo boy.  So, 9/11, Sandy Hook, and San Bernadino were all not quite so bad somehow, because they weren't hate crimes.   Nah, sorry, I'm going to go ahead and reverse the order of priority you've got there Godless.  I agree with your comments on your second point.

 

 

That's not at all what I was implying. I felt it necessary to put a bit more emphasis on the hate crime aspect of this tragedy because I know some conservatives will try to dismiss it or downplay it the way some liberals will try to downplay the Islamic aspect of it. However, I don't feel that the fact that this was a hate crime makes it any worse than the other tragedies you mentioned.

How about you propose what you've got in mind.  I'm not brainwashed, and I'm not a member of the NRA.  I'd be happy to evaluate your proposal and respond.

I know that this will be a very unpopular opinion here, but I would really like to see the assault weapons ban renewed. Large capacity high-powered firearms have no place in our society, except in the hands of people professionally trained to use them in the protection of our communities and our nation. 

I would also like to see more research put into the link between mental illness and gun violence. Anatess is absolutely right when she says that this would be a very difficult thing to put into practice, but why wouldn't we at least try it? Since when is doing the right thing easy? If it can save lives, then we should be pursuing it.

Most importantly, if there's anything we can do to empower the FBI and ATF to more easily investigate and prosecute black market gun sales, we need to be doing it. I'll admit that I'm no expert on what we're currently doing to fight illegal firearm sales, but it seems to me that this is the most important battle in our struggle to reduce senseless killing.

 

33 minutes ago, David13 said:

There is no such thing as gun violence.  It's amazing that you would even use the term "common sense".

Apparently you know nothing about guns, and have never shot or perhaps even touched one, yet all of a sudden you are an expert.  It's more than your lack of knowledge of God that you have here.

What you saw was people violence.  Religious fanatic violence.  Terrorist violence.  Islamic violence. 

No gun ever did any violence.   UNLESS someone was in control of it and used it for their purposes.

It's a fools errand to look at the instrument used, rather than who and why violence was done.

It's like calling a drunk driver (dui) hit and run killer ... car violence.  Would you call that car violence?  No?  Well then you see how idiotic it is to call this ... gun violence. 

Would you call a stabbing knife violence?  No? 

The tail doesn't wag the dog.  The gun doesn't do anything.

And the NRA follows it's members, not leads them.

dc

 

With the possible exception of hunters, when a person buys a gun, they do so with the knowledge that they may one day use it to end the life of human being. Most people hope that that will never happen, and for most people, it doesn't. Anyone who doesn't have this thought somewhere in their mind when making the purchase is ignorant of what a gun is designed to do: kill. A gun is a deadly weapon. That is its designed purpose. Gun violence is the result of someone doing exactly what a gun was designed to do. We have a constitutional right as Americans to own guns, but we also have a moral obligation to keep them out of the wrong hands to the best of our ability. True, there's only so much we can do. And yes, we're already doing a great deal in terms of background checks and law enforcement. But when something like this happens, we would do ourselves a great disservice to not ask ourselves if there's more that can be done without compromising the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. We will never stop tragedies like this completely, but if we can prevent one every now and then through legislation, then we need to pursue that course. Stopping one mass shooting will make it worth it.

 

And by the way, here is a collection of guns that I have trained on and fired, always with the full knowledge that one day there may be a human being at the other end.

 

 

[unixknight]

I love these debates where someone shows a series of pictures of firearms to somehow make us feel the fear that would make us agree with them.

Turns out, it doesn't work because guns aren't scary.  They're hunks of metal and are only involved in bad things when a bad person has one.

Also, the assault weapons ban was a meaningless law and does NOT need to be resurrected.

The problem is that there isn't a clear need for such restrictions.  Handguns are used in the vast majority of instances where people are killed.  I mean VAST majority.

In 2012:
Handguns 6371
Rifles 322
Shotguns 303
Unspecified 1749

We ignore unspecified, since we can't account for the type.  Weapons referred to as "assault weapons" fall under the category of rifles.  As you can see, only about 5% of murders committed with firearms were done with rifles, and that includes simple hunting rifles.  Barely more than shotguns. 
Also keep in mind that this only accounts for murders, not accidents or justified police shootings.

In fact, in that same year 678 people were murdered with bare hands and/or feet. More than twice as many as were killed by these terrifying weapons.  So why are we wasting time trying to ban "assault weapons" when we should be talking about hand control laws? 

So the amount of attention paid to "assault weapons" is a marketing tactic, not a legitimate issue.

*I deliberately picked a left-leaning source so as to avoid any a ppearance of looking for numbers biased to my favor, but this is from England and the author seems to have confused Washington state with Washington DC, because they placed the location of the Navy Yard shootings in the State

Edited June 14, 2016 by unixknight

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I love these debates where someone shows a series of pictures of firearms to somehow make us feel the fear that would make us agree with them.

Turns out, it doesn't work because guns aren't scary.  They're hunks of metal and are only involved in bad things when a bad person has one.

So, there's this bit that was going around in the news about the changes to the conceal carry law... someone said something about it being like a journalist carrying a camera.  And somebody replied but cameras don't kill people.

My 14-year-old son looked at me and said... cameras don't kill people but guns do?  Wouldn't it be funny if some guy puts his handgun on the table and shoves a camera down someone's throat just to prove them wrong...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, there's this bit that was going around in the news about the changes to the conceal carry law... someone said something about it being like a journalist carrying a camera.  And somebody replied but cameras don't kill people.

My 14-year-old son looked at me and said... cameras don't kill people but guns do?  Wouldn't it be funny if some guy puts his handgun on the table and shoves a camera down someone's throat just to prove them wrong...

I was about to point to Sean Penn's adventure with the camera.

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

  The guy could have had an assault ax and still kill that many.  He could have blown the place up with a home-grown IED and kill everyone instead of just half of them.

 

 

A guy swinging an axe would be easier to stop (though still difficult, admittedly) than a guy firing an assault rifle. Keep in mind that those of us who oppose assault rifles do so with the full knowledge that other guns or weapons will still be used instead. Some measures are more about reducing loss of life than stopping it entirely.

 

As for IEDs, as someone who has first-hand experience with them, I can honestly say that the thought of encountering one on US soil absolutely terrifies me. And it's definitely something that I've thought about, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing. That comes back to what I said about preventing radicalization through compassion and outreach while remaining vigilant in domestic counter-terrorism and military action abroad.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Godless

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The guy was in there for THREE HOURS - the doors held shut to keep the killer inside with over a hundred people trapped with him.  It was a "shooting fish in a barrel" incident.  The guy could have had an assault ax and still kill that many.  He could have blown the place up with a home-grown IED and kill everyone instead of just half of them.

I know several instructors who have demonstrated what can be done in three minutes (a very good police response time) with a 5 shot snubnose revolver and a pocketknife.  Of course, that assumes they don't get mobbed while reloading, which obviously was realistic for this situation, but not necessarily when dealing with a crowd with more realistic self preservation instincts.  With a 5-shot and speedloaders, it takes me about 4 seconds to empty the gun accurately at targets within 20 feet, (one shot per target, getting center mass hits) and a bit under 3 seconds to reload.  That's 25-26 targets in three minutes, and this guy had 60 times as long.  It could have been a lot worse.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

A guy swinging an axe would be easier to stop than a guy firing an assault rifle. Keep in mind that those of us who oppose assault rifles do so with the full knowledge that other guns or weapons will still be used instead. Some measures are more about reducing loss of life than stopping it entirely.

 

As for IEDs, as someone who has first-hand experience with them, I can honestly say that the thought of encountering one on US soil absolutely terrifies me. And it's definitely something that I've thought about, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing. That comes back to what I said about preventing radicalization through compassion and outreach while remaining vigilant in domestic counter-terrorism and military action abroad.

Okay... you're a gun expert... a Sig Sauer MCX is NOT an assault rifle.  But let's just say you also think an ax is an assault ax... a madman swinging an ax in a room of scared people wouldn't be easy to stop... unless you got a gun.

[Guest Godless]

12 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I love these debates where someone shows a series of pictures of firearms to somehow make us feel the fear that would make us agree with them.

 

I wasn't trying to scare anyone. He questioned my knowledge of guns, and that was my response. Ironically, the only gun types that I have no experience with are the ones that I see no problem with being available to the general public: shotguns, handguns, and low-capacity rifles. And as I mentioned previously, I wouldn't mind one day owning and training on a gun of my own, preferably a handgun with CC.

[Guest Godless]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay... you're a gun expert... a Sig Sauer MCX is NOT an assault rifle.  But let's just say you also think an ax is an assault ax... a madman swinging an ax in a room of scared people wouldn't be easy to stop... unless you got a gun.

Not easy, true (and I edited my post shortly after submitting it to clarify). And yes, a gun would be the ideal method of stopping an axe-murderer, which is why...

 

 

Quote

 

 I wouldn't mind one day owning and training on a gun of my own, preferably a handgun with CC.

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Godless

[NightSG]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

A guy swinging an axe would be easier to stop (though still difficult, admittedly) than a guy firing an assault rifle.

Depends on what you've trained for; axes are slow, but assault rifles run dry from time to time, and are really hard to use against somebody who's determined to stay in body contact while pounding your face and/or kidneys into goo.  Battle axes generally have back spikes and butt spikes for close in work.

[LeSellers]

20 minutes ago, Godless said:

I would also like to see more research put into the link between mental illness and gun violence. Anatess is absolutely right when she says that this would be a very difficult thing to put into practice, but why wouldn't we at least try it? Since when is doing the right thing easy? If it can save lives, then we should be pursuing it.

The question is, at what price? I don't mean at what monetary price (although that, too, is an issue).

Freedom is worth more than most people are wont to assign it. Denying some the right to keep'n'bear arms means the state can deny that right to all. The only means I find acceptable would be to have a rebuttable finding by an impartial court that one specific person is incapable of exercising that right, and that this finding be temporary (no more than two years), after which, if the state thinks it necessary to renew it, a new hearing be held. Any such finding would never be part of the escheated person's "permanent file" and could not be used in any case except during the period it covered and solely in cases involving firearms.

Self defense, especially against renegade government, is a natural right, God-given or by nature (take your pick), but we have the right and the obligation so defend ourselves and our families.

Lehi

[NightSG]

Multi-post

Edited June 14, 2016 by NightSG

[Just_A_Guy]

42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Just_A_Guy I understand that he wasn't directly correlating the judgment thing. It is the thoughts that seems missed, as a whole, (and, I felt, implied in the article) that I am addressing.

Some other things he said that I think are mistaken:

"There is no dividing line between technical sinners (good, church-going folks who make inconsequential mistakes now and then) and real sinners."

. . .

"Who are we to claim sight where God Himself is blind"

Certainly, when we're talking about judgment generally--or about whether there is a fundamental difference between those who try to obey (but fail) versus those who wilfully rebel--I agree.  But I think the statements you find objectionable here, need to be read in context of Givens' discussing the Lord's unreserved weeping for the lost--for the victims of the Noachian deluge, as Givens cites; and even for Perdition himself.  In that sense, God's capacity to mourn is, in some degree, blind; and I don't know that it's particularly useful (or, frankly, correct) to try to figure out what "degree of mourning" God experiences for the suffering/death/loss of varying classes of sinners. 

Quote

"I want everyone who has been saddened by this horrific crime to know that there is no hesitation, no asterisk, no qualification in my response to it,"

Not to be overly nit-picky, but note the use of the present tense:  "There is no hesitation, no asterisk . . .", followed by an acknowledgment that "[d]ifficult conversations can be resumed later.". 

When the bodies of the dead are cold in their graves, we can discuss the way the LGBTQ movement has cynically manipulated the coverage and discourse surrounding this event for their own libertine ends (and oh, how we'll discuss it--word is the FBI specifically asked the ex-wife not to mention her husband's sexual orientation).  But today, it is enough to mourn; and IMHO we need not be ashamed to do so unreservedly.

Incidentally, could you explain how to tag other users in a post?  I've been trying to figure that out for a couple of weeks now, without success. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

30 minutes ago, Godless said:

Anyone who doesn't have this thought somewhere in their mind when making the purchase is ignorant of what a gun is designed to do: kill.

In this, your are wrong. Firearms are not designed to kill, they are designed to propel a relatively small object at relatively high speed at whatever the user is pointing it toward.

Assuming I had a gun, I would have the intent to stop the threat. If that means killing the assailant, then I have the design to kill, not the gun. If stopping the threat means wounding, or merely scarring the attacker, that is my design.

Just as guns do not kill, neither do they have any design beyond the engineering drawings.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Incidentally, could you explain how to tag other users in a post?  I've been trying to figure that out for a couple of weeks now, without success. 

Type an economic at sign (@) followed by the person's user name. After a few characters, the system will suggest alternatives. Choose the correct one.

Lehi

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

Not easy, true (and I edited my post shortly after submitting it to clarify). And yes, a gun would be the ideal method of stopping an axe-murderer, which is why...

 

 

Except that your gun legislation peeps won't let you have one.  Sale of assault rifles are already banned since 1986.  Hence, Sig Sauer created the MCX because they can't sell an MCP.   But you continue to call for more gun legislation against "assault rifles", which tells me you think the MCX is also an assault rifle.  Which probably means you also believe the AR15 is an assault rifle.  Which also means, any rifles hunters use (which are even more powerful than an AR15 or MCX) is also an assault rifle... and since we're already banning rifles, the semi-auto hand gun can fire just as many rounds and just as quickly as a rifle, so might as well ban them too.

So, what do you have left?  A slingshot?

[unixknight]

Let's not get bogged down on hypertechnical definitions to prove whether guns are designed kill or not.  The question we should be asking is whether or not it's reasonable to think that restricting peoples' access to them is an effective way of making society safer.

The argument that less guns = less crime (or even that less <insert type of gun> = less crime) is an emotional argument based mostly on wishful thinking and Hollywood.  If yuo look at the actual data (like the numbers I presented above) you'll see the reality, and that's a little different from the emotional assumptions.

[Just_A_Guy]

@LeSellers Thanks. 

[anatess2]

duplicate.

Edited June 14, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

@LeSellers Thanks. 

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Except that your gun legislation peeps won't let you have one.  Sale of assault rifles are already banned since 1986.  Hence, Sig Sauer created the MCX because they can't sell an MCP.   But you continue to call for more gun legislation against "assault rifles", which tells me you think the MCX is also an assault rifle.  Which probably means you also believe the AR15 is an assault rifle.  Which also means, any rifles hunters use (which are even more powerful than an AR15 or MCX) is also an assault rifle... and since we're already banning rifles, the semi-auto hand gun can fire just as many rounds and just as quickly as a rifle, so might as well ban them too.

So, what do you have left?  A slingshot?

I see a big issue with the way this debate is framed.  People bandy about terms like "assault weapon" like that means something.  It's a tactic because a phrase like that sounds scary, so it's easy to talk about "reasonable limits" on "assault weapons" but there's one problem... That term means NOTHING.  It literally means nothing.  Nowhere in any military or gun enthusiast document is the term "assault weapon" defined.  It's a phrase that means a little something different to everybody, which is what makes it so valuable as a way of recruiting people to participate in the gun banning agenda...  Just say "Let's ban assault weapons!" and that sounds perfectly reasonable, because it's easy to stigmatize someone who supports private ownership of military weapons.  (Think of the children, people!!!)  It's kinda like when people start screaming for a ban on fully automatic weapons...   Tell you a secret, they're already banned unless you have an extremely expensive and difficult to obtain Federal collector's license.  It's all rhetoric.

In the '90s there was a Federal "assault weapons ban" which was just an arbitrary list of features on rifles that were restricted.  For instance, a rifle couldn't be sold with more of the following 2 features:  Pistol grip, flash suppressor, semi-automatic fire, ammo clip with a capacity greater than 5 rounds, etc.  Any rifle that had more than 2 of these features would be considered an "assault rifle" for the purpose of this law and was thus banned.  Also, imported rifles had to have a certain percentage of their parts made in the USA.

During the time of this law being in effect, I owned 2 rifles that would be considered "assault rifles" had they had but one more of those features:

An AR-15 .223 semi-automatic rifle with a 20" fluted barrel.  It had no flash suppressor, so it wasn't an "assault rifle."  It did have a pistol grip and 30 round magazines.  It was just as effective as it would be with a flash suppressor, but since it didn't have that little feature it was perfectly legal.

I also had a Maadi AKMR (civilian version of the AK-47) imported from Egypt.  It had a single stock, no pistol grip, fired 7.62mm ammo and was semi-auto.  It wasn't an "assault rifle" because it didn't have a pistol grip, even  though there was an opening in the single piece stock so that you still held it exactly as you would if it had a pistol grip.  I also bought a couple of 30 round magazines, made in the Czeck Republic, so technically every time I snapped one of those clips on, it became an "assault rifle" and thus illegal, even though it was exactly the same as if I'd bought U.S. made clips of the same capacity and performance.

These laws were utterly arbitrary and made to make gun control enthusiasts happy.  They expired in the early 2000s and the difference in the homicide rate in the U.S. changed not a whit for the law being in place.

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, unixknight said:

Let's not get bogged down on hypertechnical definitions to prove whether guns are designed kill or not.

It's an important distinction because it shifts the discussion and weighs in favor of those who argue that guns are inherently evil.

Thomas Szasz is too often forgotten: "In the animal kingdom, the rule is kill or be killed. In the human world, it's define or be defined." If we ceded the vocabulary, we lose the argument.

Guns are tools. The user defines the purpose. It is the user's design that makes the difference. The gunsmith only provides that tool.

Lehi

Edited June 14, 2016 by LeSellers

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Certainly, when we're talking about judgment generally--or about whether there is a fundamental difference between those who try to obey (but fail) versus those who wilfully rebel--I agree.  But I think the statements you find objectionable here, need to be read in context of Givens' discussing the Lord's unreserved weeping for the lost--for the victims of the Noachian deluge, as Givens cites; and even for Perdition himself.  In that sense, God's capacity to mourn is, in some degree, blind; and I don't know that it's particularly useful (or, frankly, correct) to try to figure out what "degree of mourning" God experiences for the suffering/death/loss of varying classes of sinners. 

Agreed that it isn't correct. God weeps much, much more for the sinners than for the righteous. That concept, I do find useful, but also ignored fairly universally. (Though I agree...trying to figure out specifically how much is a waste).

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not to be overly nit-picky, but note the use of the present tense:  "There is no hesitation, no asterisk . . .", followed by an acknowledgment that "[d]ifficult conversations can be resumed later.". 

When the bodies of the dead are cold in their graves, we can discuss the LGBTQ movement's cynical manipulation of the coverage and discourse surrounding of this event for their own libertine ends (and oh, how we'll discuss it).  But today, it is enough to mourn; and IMHO we need not be ashamed to do so unreservedly.

It is overly nit-picky.  We could nit-pick the language, and I'm sure there's some validity there...and some debate to be had...so if you'd like...

But I'm really addressing it in terms of broader concepts that I think are missed across the board. Specifically...(as stated)...the eternal perspective. And...moreover, I take exception to those who want to define my compassion by their standards because I include the eternal perspective. I, and those like me, know how compassionate we are and are not. We know what we do and do not. We know why. Specifically, I mourn. I feel sad. If I were there and had any ability to be involved, I would be. I would protect, comfort, help, feed, etc. If monetary donations are needed I may well donate. I know where my compassion and love lies. But when I respond, in general, with the eternal perspective in the public online forum world, and others might response by calling my compassion into question accordingly, I don't accept that. (This hasn't happened to me yet, as I've largely stayed out of it until now, so I'm just talking in principle).

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Incidentally, could you explain how to tag other users in a post?  I've been trying to figure that out for a couple of weeks now, without success. 

Type @ and then start typing the username. A dropdown will appear. @Just_A_Guy

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Guns are tools. The user defines the purpose. It is the user's design the makes the difference. The gunsmith only provides that tool.

I agree with you here, but the problem is when getting bogged down in the debate over whether guns themselves kill, you're implicitly acknowledging that, if killing IS their purpose, they're therefore inherently bad things and that scores points for the gun grabbers' side.