Mass violence & gun control

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have said before – law is imposing the morals on one segment of the population on the rest of the population.  We can only legislate morals – we cannot change anything empirical.  A belief in G-d is that someday we will be responsible for our morals.

As a side note – I believe we as Saints of G-d have an obligation to obey the laws of the country we are citizens and live in.  If such a country has laws against bearing arms – I believe the law should be obeyed.  Nothing is simple – there are always things to be considered.  G-d can and does command that life is to be taken – sometimes from the defenseless.

 

The Traveler

I'm going to address this separately because it is not relevant to our other discussion.

The reason why I consider myself classic Liberal (as opposed to American Liberal which is a completely different ball of wax) - is that I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENTS IMPOSING MORAL LAWS.  Canon Law is a moral law, Shariah Law is a moral law, the Word of Wisdom is a moral law.  I don't want those things imposed by Government.  I am completely for A VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT totally separate from the Church which is the moral authority.

What I want the government to impose is the preservation of Life and the protection of children.  I am anti abortion law not because it is a "moral law" but because abortion is a destruction of life.  I am anti divorce law and anti homosexual marriage not because it is a "moral law" but because it destroys children.  Etc. etc. 

I will always be against gun control not only because that's how Marcos became a dictator but also because it is anti-American.

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by anatess2

[mordorbund]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What I want the government to impose is the preservation of Life and the protection of children.

Sounds like a morality.

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, NightSG said:

Breaking into my occupied home is already a pretty definite action.  Nobody does that just to bring me a sandwich.

True, but there has to be more to justify using deadly force.  Thus, their actions will dictate the result of the bad decision to break into my home.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Sounds like a morality.

Sure.  In its broadest meaning.  There is a difference between a subset of Morality believed by a certain sect of society to the morality universal to humanity. 

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

True, but there has to be more to justify using deadly force.  Thus, their actions will dictate the result of the bad decision to break into my home.

 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, yet another urban myth gets propagated by the military.  Have I mentioned before how often that happens?

Interesting - I asssume that the book that likely got its data from the military contridicts the military.  That gives you confidence? 

As a side note - I am not sure that I fully trust the military - I spent part of my service with army intelligence - I have been part of gathering the stats you reference. 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I do not have the data myself - but I am quite sure that none of the incidents of mass shooting involve an individual with a carry permit as the responsible party. 

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

True, but there has to be more to justify using deadly force

I'm not a lawyer or a police officer but I assume that if you use deadly force and actually kill someone, you will probably at the very least be detained and arrested. Just until the police figure out what happened. And with good reason-the cop you called doesn't have a clue what went on.  All he/she will see is you standing over a corpse with a gun. 

Even if you the cops "let you go" and the prosecutor decides not to prosecute you, you've got a very heavy burden to carry around. It might be justified but do you really want that blood on your hands? I ran over a squirrel once and I felt so awful about I cried for like three days. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by MormonGator

[zil]

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I ran over a squirrel once and I felt so awful about I cried for like three days. 

Moose cried for three months!

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

Moose cried for three months!

That's awesome! lol. 

I started bawling. The girl I was with at time was like "Dude, it's a squirrel. They had it coming for crossing the road like that." I was still crushed. 

[Grunt]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:41 PM, Godless said:

The reason I worded my statement the way I did is because far too often I see good law-abiding citizens freak out whenever gun control is brought up. "My cold dead hands" and whatnot. It shouldn't be necessary to specify that taking guns away from lawful gun owners is not on the table, yet here we are. 

 

1

Of course, it is.   States move to take guns from non-violent people all the time.  I know many non-violent people who legally can't own firearms.   Don't let dangerous people back on the streets.  Leave my guns alone.

[NightSG]

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Don't let dangerous people back on the streets.

This; if someone can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with knives, a car, a club, fists, etc.

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, NightSG said:

This; if someone can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with knives, a car, a club, fists, etc.

Exactly.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Grunt I hope you do not live in Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey or Maryland.  They have terrible laws that infringe on private firearm ownership. 

As I stated earlier, criminalizing self defense is what corrupt tyrannies do.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

Interesting - I asssume that the book that likely got its data from the military contridicts the military.  That gives you confidence? 

As a side note - I am not sure that I fully trust the military - I spent part of my service with army intelligence - I have been part of gathering the stats you reference. 

 

The Traveler

Every myth that I've seen come from the military follows an interesting pattern:  They gather all the data they can.  It is usually dependable.  Then they summarize it with a completely non-sequitur conclusion because they didn't think it through.

Example:

Notice that in the statistics the author cited, one war showed that we had a majority of injuries from friendly fire.  Only one.  But someone apparently focused on that one war and this got propagated to the point where "all throughout history" the majority of deaths were friendly fire.

Another Example:

A minor level of radiation poisoning is treated with Potassium Iodide.  So, someone thought, "Hey, bananas have potassium.  Eating bananas will help prevent radiation poisoning."  I've now heard this from MULTIPLE military personnel.  And I've heard it from no one else.  They don't realize that it isn't the potassium, but the iodide that is protecting them.  And even then, it is not naturally occurring iodine.  It is specially prepared iodine.

It is this kind of stuff that comes out of the military.  So, the raw data is usually dependable.  But the conclusions and myths that get spread around are just baffling.  This, I believe, is why the military is so scared of EMPs (another thread).

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  In its broadest meaning.  There is a difference between a subset of Morality believed by a certain sect of society to the morality universal to humanity. 

 

I believe this demonstrates exactly the problem faced by those that think they oppose “moral” laws.  If there truly is a morality universal to humanity there would be no need of any law to enforce it.   The only reason to have a law is because of a certain sect of society that does not believe that moral principle applies to them.

What happens is that the certain sect of society that is in power determines what morals are forced on the society with the force of law.  The Book of Mormon warns specifically those societies that govern by the force of law without a “True” belief in G-d causing that society to sin and come under condemnation.

Historically, because of the Great Apostasy, many have adopted the false notion of separation of church and state – but I submit that such a necessity is a direct result of Apostasy and that from the beginning of man – the true religion of G-d given to man when directly connected to the powers of governing is the only way to maintain and sustain the liberty of mankind in any society.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 10, 2017 by Traveler

[anatess2]

51 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe this demonstrates exactly the problem faced by those that think they oppose “moral” laws.  If there truly is a morality universal to humanity there would be no need of any law to enforce it.   The only reason to have a law is because of a certain sect of society that does not believe that moral principle applies to them.

What happens is that the certain sect of society that is in power determines what morals are forced on the society with the force of law.  The Book of Mormon warns specifically those societies that govern by the force of law without a “True” belief in G-d causing that society to sin and come under condemnation.

Historically, because of the Great Apostasy, many have adopted the false notion of separation of church and state – but I submit that such a necessity is a direct result of Apostasy and that from the beginning of man – the true religion of G-d given to man when directly connected to the powers of governing is the only way to maintain and sustain the liberty of mankind in any society.

 

The Traveler

Agreed.

Hence, in the world's Apostate state, GOVERNMENT MUST BE LIMITED.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Every myth that I've seen come from the military follows an interesting pattern:  They gather all the data they can.  It is usually dependable.  Then they summarize it with a completely non-sequitur conclusion because they didn't think it through.

Example:

Notice that in the statistics the author cited, one war showed that we had a majority of injuries from friendly fire.  Only one.  But someone apparently focused on that one war and this got propagated to the point where "all throughout history" the majority of deaths were friendly fire.

Another Example:

A minor level of radiation poisoning is treated with Potassium Iodide.  So, someone thought, "Hey, bananas have potassium.  Eating bananas will help prevent radiation poisoning."  I've now heard this from MULTIPLE military personnel.  And I've heard it from no one else.  They don't realize that it isn't the potassium, but the iodide that is protecting them.  And even then, it is not naturally occurring iodine.  It is specially prepared iodine.

It is this kind of stuff that comes out of the military.  So, the raw data is usually dependable.  But the conclusions and myths that get spread around are just baffling.  This, I believe, is why the military is so scared of EMPs (another thread).

 

Perhaps the greatest myths about military service are concluded by those that are void of military experience.  I experienced something quite interesting because I served in both the military and I served a LDS church mission.  I learned that the experience of being in the military and on a mission, is very different than all the studies about either.   In regard to the military, there is a particular stress that enters the soul of a person in violent conflicts that threaten life.   If there is any confusion under such conditions that exist in violent conflict – you will kill your friends as easily and quickly as your enemies.  There is nothing that will prepare you for that experience – The simple fact is that training will only help someone be less confused.   My experience and point is – If someone arms themselves in anticipation of a violent conflict – if you will not be able to live with yourself if you become confused – even if you do not actually kill a friend – you would be better off not arming yourself.  This is the very cause of PTSD and the choice to use a firearm for protection in anticipation of a violent conflict, one has to realize that it is possible that they will have to live out the rest of their life with the remembrance of what they did when they were confused. 

We can all talk the talk but if you cannot live with a mistake – you cannot walk the walk.  We expect a lot from our police and service men and granted if there is a pattern of mistakes they need to be removed from such service – but to demand or think that mistakes are unacceptable is itself a grave mistake – especially if we apply such to ourselves thinking we are incapable of or above such a mistake.  I have no objection about someone making a choice but I am concerned when people make choices not realizing what they are choosing. 

Perhaps very few will understand why I would rather be killed in a violent conflict than choose to arm myself and take action.  That does not mean that I won’t arm myself and take action – it does mean that I do not have any desire to – and quite frankly I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why anyone would brag about their desire to do such a thing.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Agreed.

Hence, in the world's Apostate state, GOVERNMENT MUST BE LIMITED.

 

I have no problem with the concept of limiting the government - my concern is with those that think themselves or any other human as morally capable of defining that limit for government or religion.    I am more desirous to limit those that want to define the limits.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

 

36 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I have no problem with the concept of limiting the government - my concern is with those that think themselves or any other human as morally capable of defining that limit for government or religion.    I am more desirous to limit those that want to define the limits.

 

The Traveler

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  What is the moral argument against defining the limits of government?

[Blueskye2]

On 11/7/2017 at 8:44 AM, Traveler said:

 

Second thought:  We can eliminate and prevent mass violence with gun control?  I am not the brightest bulb on this planet but I am quite sure that I could put together devices of mass violence just from the materials in 80% of the garages of this country.  And yes, that includes making a gun or even a small cannon (among other things).  In addition, if someone has access to a 3D printer their access to instruments of violent capability is dramatically increased.

I believe part of the problem we are facing is a trend in our society to disrespect G-d and our fellow men.  Many of us that have a religious nature have thought that we can isolate ourselves in some little corner and live in peace.  I do not believe this is currently working nor do I believe such thinking has ever been sustainable.  

 

A thoughtful post, thanks for sharing.

If we’re going to throw out statistics and profile based on them, then ~85% of homicides in the US would be reduced by removing access to a single demographic: men. 

I agree that the secular/godless, anything goes, with no objective morality and an associated need for self reflection and repentance, is one of the main issues. 

[Traveler]

19 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  What is the moral argument against defining the limits of government?

It appears to me that government is not something real that exist on its own - only in the mind of those that think they know what it is.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

It appears to me that government is not something real that exist on its own - only in the mind of those that think they know what it is.

 

The Traveler

That doesn't answer my question, though.  

 

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I have no problem with the concept of limiting the government - my concern is with those that think themselves or any other human as morally capable of defining that limit for government or religion.    I am more desirous to limit those that want to define the limits.

 

The Traveler

That is BACKWARDS thinking.

There is We, The People and there is The Government (composed of a subset of The People).  Government, biblical terms, is Ceasar.

The ideal is No Government Necessary - that is,  no Ceasars, or No subset of The People ruling the rest of The People.  At ALL.  Zilch, zero, nada.  That leaves nothing but Jesus Christ as the Ruler without any competition from Ceasar.   So we give freely to God without having to worry about giving to Ceasar.

The more government, the farther it is from ideal.  Any human who limits government - reduces the power and the number of The Ruling People - is closer to ideal than any human who does not limit government, regardless of morality.

Edited November 10, 2017 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

With respect

To be honest, I've never heard of the military stating anything close to the idea that a majority of deaths come from friendly fire when in war.  None of those I've talked to within the military ever stated something like that.  In every conflict I think they point that friendly fire has caused deaths, but it is no where close to causing more deaths than of the enemy they kill.

The normal stat I've heard is that other causes are the major causes of death in war, not direct action.  So it is disease and infection that have killed more over the centuries than direct action in battle (though much of the infection at times are caused by wounds from battles in times prior to our modern age).  in addition, you also toss in the additives of starvation, exposure, and other elements and the deaths from direct actions (battle deaths) start to become the minority of death in regards to the total number of deaths caused by war.

In regards to soldiers, this is not always true though, and there are instances where battle deaths exceed deaths not from battle deaths.

However, when NOT actively involved in fighting, the non-hostile deaths exceed hostile deaths (probably for obvious reasons) and friendly fire would be a higher cause of death than hostile fire.

This is from the AF website

Air University Air Force Casualties and Lists of Statistics

Though I'm not positive, wouldn't friendly fire come under the heading of Non-hostile: Accident or something similar to that?

I am a civilian and unfamiliar with some military items, but I have dealt enough with military and their individuals to have some idea what they teach and promote (I have to admit to a legal education, part of which taught how administrative law worked which included Veterans and benefits they are able to claim...and then some volunteer work helping veterans in obtaining benefits over the years which has given me a little bit of experience in learning a few things from them - This does not mean I know everything, obviously, for example, there was a recent question I asked about BCD and DD discharges that I had no idea about on these very boards).  They have spoken on these things (I heard from one today even, at the school, discussing something which sounds like it probably caused them PTSD for years, probably still does), but I've never heard something like that.

Whether it was or wasn't from the US military, I will say the US military from my experience is more accurate on it's reports and statistics than MANY civilian reports and paperwork.  They are far more orderly and intrepid in ensuring good information for their educational arenas.  I have had the pleasure at times of working with them in my chosen occupation as well due to some subjects which I cover, and they have always been more prompt, to the point, and professional than most other organizations I've ever had to deal with. 

I find it hard to believe that the military would push something inaccurate upon their soldiers in training.  Friendly fire IS a problem, and I think much what was said is probably accurate.  There is probably a high chance of killing someone you know and is on your side in the stress of combat when you are untrained and being attacked.  However, that's why soldiers go through training, and why civilians with guns should go through hunter's education, gun safety, and other courses.  In some states, gun safety is a requirement before being able to own a gun. 

However, I do not think the US military would say something like Friendly Fire kills more than Hostile action.  If it is true that Friendly Fire kills more than hostile fire in general, I must admit I have not heard that before.  If it is not true, than perhaps this was just a one off experience?  Perhaps it was one trainer's take or understanding in that regard rather than the entire military?  Or perhaps it was a point where they were exaggerating one thing in order to impress upon the trainees the importance of a principle (not unheard of from what I understand)?

I find it very hard to think the military would get something that wrong and perpetuate it in my opinion....And I don't think that the military spreads urban myths, once again in my own opinion (and my opinion has been wrong at times, I freely admit).

On that note, thanks to all the Veterans for the Freedoms we enjoy this Veterans Day.

Edited November 11, 2017 by JohnsonJones