Self-defense poll for US Saints

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, zil said:

Plus, it's not like a gun is an Erlenmeyer flask or something.  Thank heaven the great state of Texas doesn't let just anyone buy those!

I guess I've been breaking the law...

[zil]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I guess I've been breaking the law...

My brother went to order one on Amazon and noticed a blurb about how if you were in Texas, the seller would contact you for a copy of your permit.  So we went investigating and came to the conclusion that Texas law-makers are idiots (no offense, but seriously).

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I find it odd that so many here have carried in church.  What is the chance of there being a mass shooting in an LDS church?  Very low.  What is the chance of you being in that particular church if it ever does happen?  Much lower.  You have far greater chance dying in a car accident going to and returning from church.

What you say is true.   But the odds of there being a need to defend yourself at church is about the same as your odds of being a need to defend yourself just about anywhere.  It's not that carriers are expecting trouble.  To the contrary, as I mentioned above, if I was expecting trouble, I wouldn't be there in the first place.  The deal is being prepared in case trouble comes.

It's not like our churches are safer than other churches, or other places where good guys go to congregate.  Church shootings are absolutely a thing.  And deadly events at our churches are things too.  The last one I heard about was 3 months ago:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/22/suspect-custody-after-shooting-fallon-lds-church/817073002/
 

[anatess2]

There are so many other things that may call on you to discharge your firearm... especially in Florida...

1.) You get trapped by a mama black bear.

2.) You get coiled by a burmese python.

3.) You get bit by a water mocassin, and you have to take the snake with you to the ER so they know what antivenin to shoot you with.

4.) You get wrestled by a gator.

 

Okay okay... I don't really know if a firearm can save you from these.  I don't carry.  I rely on my husband for all that (yeah, very anti-feminist of me).

[jdf135]

First, statistics clearly show "For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.*  I don't have a gun, have never shot a gun (except bb's) and never plan to shoot or own a gun.  I don't believe one is ever truly safe with a gun in the home.  I don't even like that my son plays paintball.  It may be a myth but I do recall hearing President Kimball did not allow his personal guards to carry weaponry as he did not want to be responsible for the death of anyone - even an aggressor.  I know I am an LDS anomaly, but my scripture heroes are not the prominent warriors but the Anti-Nephi-Lehies who would die rather than take up arms.  I am not condemning those who think it is important to defend self and family at any cost, I just seem particularly sensitive to the admonition of Jesus who is reported to have told Peter (Matt. 26:52) for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

*https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check/

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

First, statistics clearly show "For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.*  I don't have a gun, have never shot a gun (except bb's) and never plan to shoot or own a gun.  I don't believe one is ever truly safe with a gun in the home.  I don't even like that my son plays paintball.  It may be a myth but I do recall hearing President Kimball did not allow his personal guards to carry weaponry as he did not want to be responsible for the death of anyone - even an aggressor.  I know I am an LDS anomaly, but my scripture heroes are not the prominent warriors but the Anti-Nephi-Lehies who would die rather than take up arms.  I am not condemning those who think it is important to defend self and family at any cost, I just seem particularly sensitive to the admonition of Jesus who is reported to have told Peter (Matt. 26:52) for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

*https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check/

 

This has been reviewed https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html and found wanting.  Most specifically, it identifies numbers.  It does nothing to describe any kind of causal relationship.  The reader might as well be led to believe that because I (as a law abiding citizen) own a gun, that somehow I'm to blame for 7 assaults that had nothing to do with me, 11 suicides that had nothing to do with me and 4 accidents that had nothing to do with me.  Do you really buy that?

The next segment is difficult to paraphrase, so look at the article.  The conclusion is this: if he had looked at the statistics with proper analytics, the conclusion would have been that owning a gun had a positive impact on the survivability of the gun owner and their household.

[NeuroTypical]

33 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

"For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.* 

Let's run with this a second.  According to this website, https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/, 45k suicides per year, and for every suicide, there are 25 attempts.  Meaning 1.1 million suicide attempts per year.  Maybe high, maybe low, but we can run with it for a second.

So, by that math, guns are used for self-defense in the home over a hundred thousand times every year.  That doesn't count all the times outside of the home.  And "used for self-defense" might mean simply brandishing, not actually shooting someone.  

[sarcasm on] Obviously, the solution to these 100,000 successful instances of self-defense, is to disarm the good guys.  That way, the bad guys don't get thwarted.  [sarcasm off]

 

[jdf135]

Thank you for reiterating the fact that, indeed, in statistics correlation does not mean causality -- but correlation can make you wonder about the connections.  Regardless, as a member of a depreciated LDS minority (i.e. unarmed), I simply felt I needed to stand up and defend myself and my fellow weirdos by reminding people that guns are efficient, quick-to-use killing machines that harm many more people than just bad guys.  

And to get myself into even bigger trouble....

as one who believes the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (or even say to his brother "raca") it does disturb me that others who claim to believe in the exact same commandment fiercely treasure items whose invention was for the sole purpose of killing. 

I know.  I am a fuzzy-brained extreme pacifist.  You are allowed to pity me.  Namaste, peace, love, Ghandi, MLK, and groovy moonbeams✌️ .  

Edited November 6, 2018 by jdf135
grammar and clarity

[NeuroTypical]

Quote

I simply felt I needed to stand up and defend myself and my fellow weirdos by reminding people that guns are efficient, quick-to-use killing machines that harm many more people than just bad guys.

This is a fair point, and relevant in the overall debate of how societies should try to live.   But this is just a plain old poll for US Saints.

 

5 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

I know.  I am a fuzzy-brained extreme pacifist.  You are allowed to pity me.  Namaste, peace, love, Ghandi, MLK, and groovy moonbeams✌️ .  

I pride myself as being both a tinfoil-hat wearing gun nut, and a tree-hugging moonbeam-rider.    If you and I ever are found dancing in a sunny meadow or some such, I won't be the first one to bring up this issue.  Deal?

Edited November 6, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[jdf135]

Deal.

[Vort]

33 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

as one who believes the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (or even say to his brother "raca") it does disturb me that others who claim to believe in the exact same commandment fiercely treasure items whose invention was for the sole purpose of killing.

A modicum of rational thought (or a little bit of digging) will reveal that the intent of "thou shalt not kill" is better expressed as "thou shalt not murder". Killing of human beings per se is not prohibited as a blanket rule. On the contrary, it is allowable and even commanded at times.

The only scriptural passages I know of that explicitly detail and praise pacifists–meaning those who refuse to take up arms for any reason–are those associated with the people of Limhi, or Anti-Nephi-Lehies. It must always be kept in mind that these people were despicable, filthy murderers prior to their conversion. It was for exactly this reason that they made such a terrible covenant, to the point of watching their wives and children murdered rather than defend them.

If you, too, are a repentant despicable murderer in danger of giving in to your blood lust again if you ever again take a human life even in self-defense, then you, too, should probably make such a covenant. But that covenant does not apply to your neighbor, who is not a despicable murderer seeking the wash innocent blood from his hands with the Savior's blood. On the contrary, his acts of defense, perhaps including killing the enemy, may well save your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Extreme pacifism is no virtue. In some cases, it's nothing but gift-wrapped cowardice.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Reacting to some of the comments in this thread.  I do not like that the King James Version lists the inferior translation of God's commandment:  Thou shalt not kill.  It should be written as:  "Thou shalt not murder."

Thou shalt not kill in my mind contradicts this commandment of God written in the Book of Mormon:   "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

One final comment from me is the following:  No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.

[zil]

44 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

Thank you for reiterating the fact that, indeed, in statistics correlation does not mean causality -- but correlation can make you wonder about the connections.  Regardless, as a member of a depreciated LDS minority (i.e. unarmed), I simply felt I needed to stand up and defend myself and my fellow weirdos by reminding people that guns are efficient, quick-to-use killing machines that harm many more people than just bad guys.  

I don't know a single gun owner who (a) is upset by people who choose for themselves not to own guns, or (b) thinks people should have to own / use / carry guns.  (The inverse, unfortunately, is not the case - usually, the people who choose not to own guns themselves also want no one else to have them.)

44 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

And to get myself into even bigger trouble....

as one who believes the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (or even say to his brother "raca") it does disturb me that others who claim to believe in the exact same commandment fiercely treasure items whose invention was for the sole purpose of killing. 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134.11?lang=eng&clang=eng#p10

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/43.46-47?lang=eng&clang=eng#p45

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.22-48?lang=eng#p21

I'm perfectly content with everyone deciding for themselves how to reconcile all these principles.  What I'm not OK with is someone telling me how I should reconcile them (or, more specifically, telling me that I should not be able to use a gun to defend myself against an attack - which by nature of the entity known as "me" is pretty much guaranteed to come in the form of younger, bigger, stronger, and/or more numerous - if it comes at all).

Edited November 6, 2018 by zil

[let’s roll]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

I don't know a single gun owner who (a) is upset by people who choose for themselves not to own guns, or (b) thinks people should have to own / use / carry guns.  (The inverse, unfortunately, is not the case - usually, the people who choose not to own guns themselves also want no one else to have them.)

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134.11?lang=eng&clang=eng#p10

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/43.46-47?lang=eng&clang=eng#p45

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.22-48?lang=eng#p21

I'm perfectly content with everyone deciding for themselves how to reconcile all these principles.  What I'm not OK with is someone telling me how I should reconcile them (or, more specifically, telling me that I should not be able to use a gun to defend myself against an attack - which by nature of the entity known as "me" is pretty much guaranteed to come in the form of younger, bigger, stronger, and/or more numerous - if it comes at all).

Hi Zil.  Thanks for your thoughtful post, I always appreciate your wisdom.  

If you care to respond, I’m interested in your thoughts on the post Vort made just before yours.  

Best wishes.

[NeuroTypical]

31 minutes ago, zil said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134.11?lang=eng&clang=eng#p10

Let's just take that little scripture thingy out of the back row, and have it stand up in front of class for everyone to see, shall we?

11 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.

 

Fun Trivia: Section 134 was originally issued with this preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same.”  The section was originally presented to the general assembly in Kirtland, and adopted by unanimous vote.  

[Guest MormonGator]

37 minutes ago, Vort said:

Extreme pacifism is no virtue. In some cases, it's nothing but gift-wrapped cowardice.

Yup. 

I've never understood pacifism. Let's see-I could defend my family from a psychopath using a gun, or I could stand by and let him slaughter my children while I cry in a ball in the closet for the police to come and rescue me. 

I seriously don't get it.  

Edited November 6, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

In fact, you can learn this lesson in 4th grade. Who does a bully pick on more? The tattletale who runs behind the teacher every time, or the kid who punches back? 

 

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, jdf135 said:

First, statistics clearly show "For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.*  I don't have a gun, have never shot a gun (except bb's) and never plan to shoot or own a gun.  I don't believe one is ever truly safe with a gun in the home.  I don't even like that my son plays paintball.  It may be a myth but I do recall hearing President Kimball did not allow his personal guards to carry weaponry as he did not want to be responsible for the death of anyone - even an aggressor.  I know I am an LDS anomaly, but my scripture heroes are not the prominent warriors but the Anti-Nephi-Lehies who would die rather than take up arms.  I am not condemning those who think it is important to defend self and family at any cost, I just seem particularly sensitive to the admonition of Jesus who is reported to have told Peter (Matt. 26:52) for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

*https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check/

 

So... what you're saying is...

Because this guy used his genitals to rape a 7-year-old... you should have your genitals castrated.  Because... one can never be truly safe with male genitals in the home?

Oh, rapists don't really kill people... so how about... because this guy ran over a 7-year-old at a bus stop with his car... one shouldn't have cars?

Oh.. cars are not designed to kill people.  Well, guess what... neither are guns.  They're not designed to kill people.  They're designed to launch an object as fast and far and precisely as as engineeringly possible.

So, I don't know... it always makes me laugh that people who think guns kill people don't have the first understanding of what a gun is.

Same as those who are scared of snakes actually.  You can have a snake minding his own business 100 yards away and people go get their shovels, run to the snake and whack his head off.

Edited November 6, 2018 by anatess2

[let’s roll]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yup. 

I've never understood pacifism. Let's see-I could defend my family from a psychopath using a gun, or I could stand by and let him slaughter my children while I cry in a ball in the closet for the police to come and rescue me. 

I seriously don't get it.  

I’ve thwarted two armed robberies of people I didn’t know without using a weapon or laying a hand on the robber. 

I’ve never been in a fight.  

I respect people who choose to own and use guns. 

I seriously don’t understand why anyone would want to call someone who decides not to own a gun a coward.

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I seriously don’t understand why anyone would want to call someone who decides not to own a gun a coward.

Then please forgive me if that's what you thought I did. I did not intend to call you a coward. I was responding generally to an element of your post, not directing my remarks toward you personally.

I do believe there are people who would refuse to engage an enemy who was threatening their loved ones, not out of some deep moral respect for human life or individuality or some such thing, but just because they would be too afraid to act. They would abandon innocents to the hands of evil men (and women) because they lack the courage to stand for the right. In my experience, such people will justify their actions by appealing to pacifism, wrapping themselves in the warm cloak of moral righteousness because they are just too morally upright to hurt another person—even one threatening their family.

If you fit this description, then perhaps I was unintentionally speaking of you. Otherwise, I was not. I was trying to echo the teachings of the Prophet:

"while we will be the last to oppress we will be the last to be driven from our post—peace be still bury the hatchet & the sword.—the sound of war is dreadfull in my ear. any man who will not fight for his wife & children is a coward & a bastard." -Joseph Smith, Jr.

EDIT: That was @jdf135 I was originally responding to, not @let’s roll. The above response was directed toward let's roll, but actually applies to jdf135. My bad for not keeping the posters straight in my mind.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Vort

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I’ve thwarted two armed robberies of people I didn’t know without using a weapon or laying a hand on the robber.

It's nothing personal, but I find that hard to believe. Sorry. 

 

11 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I’ve never been in a fight.  

I have. High school. This kid charged me in the locker room. I quickly realized that he probably wouldn't listen to reason, cuddles, or harsh words, so I kicked him before he could attack me. The fight ended there. 

I guess I should have stood there and let him attack me. Or prayed or yelled for help.  I prefer to rely on myself though. 
 

11 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I respect people who choose to own and use guns. 

I respect people who don't, even though I think it's foolish. 

11 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I seriously don’t understand why anyone would want to call someone who decides not to own a gun a coward.

Is it cowardly? No. Naive? Yes. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I seriously don’t understand why anyone would want to call someone who decides not to own a gun a coward.

You misunderstood that statement.  

The statement is:  Extreme pacifism is no virtue. In some cases, it's nothing but gift-wrapped cowardice.

Has nothing to do with deciding not to own a gun.  It was on the discussion about having to kill people.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I’ve thwarted two armed robberies of people I didn’t know without using a weapon or laying a hand on the robber. 

I’ve never been in a fight.  

First World Lives.  Must be nice.

Edited November 6, 2018 by anatess2

[jdf135]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

A modicum of rational thought (or a little bit of digging) will reveal that the intent of "thou shalt not kill" is better expressed as "thou shalt not murder". Killing of human beings per se is not prohibited as a blanket rule. On the contrary, it is allowable and even commanded at times.

The only scriptural passages I know of that explicitly detail and praise pacifists–meaning those who refuse to take up arms for any reason–are those associated with the people of Limhi, or Anti-Nephi-Lehies. It must always be kept in mind that these people were despicable, filthy murderers prior to their conversion. It was for exactly this reason that they made such a terrible covenant, to the point of watching their wives and children murdered rather than defend them.

If you, too, are a repentant despicable murderer in danger of giving in to your blood lust again if you ever again take a human life even in self-defense, then you, too, should probably make such a covenant. But that covenant does not apply to your neighbor, who is not a despicable murderer seeking the wash innocent blood from his hands with the Savior's blood. On the contrary, his acts of defense, perhaps including killing the enemy, may well save your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Extreme pacifism is no virtue. In some cases, it's nothing but gift-wrapped cowardice. 

 

“When we do not retaliate—when we turn the other cheek and resist feelings of anger—we … stand with the Savior. We show forth His love, which is the only power that can subdue the adversary and answer our accusers without accusing them in return. That is not weakness. That is Christian courage. - Robert D. Hales
 

[anatess2]

Well.  My 15-year-old owns a competition-grade rifle and pistol.  Zero intention of killing people or shooting at people.  Zero.  He has zero intention of going into law enforcement or the military. 

But man, that kid can empty his pistol's magazine at 15 yards on a one-inch cluster.  He loves shooting firearms like he loves playing video games.  His dream is to win the 3-gun championship and live the rest of his life on the circuit.  College is not in that plan. 

I, as his mother, have to put some practical sense into him, so we mapped out a better career goal for him - he is now planning on taking firearms engineering which is a subset of mechanical engineering.  He said he will do to firearms like his brother does to his music... design the most ridiculous way to shoot a projectile and still maintain accuracy.  His brother composes the most ridiculous combination of time measures that still sounds pleasing.

My son's favorite place to visit in Nauvoo is the Browning Museum.  Browning was LDS.

Edited November 6, 2018 by anatess2