[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

 

 

You do know alcohol is already heavily taxed, right?

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

Very curious about this. 

 

Do people who see a link believe the US is a special case ? Like, literally, seen as such by God ? Or just a Christian nation, subject to greater punishment than the rest of the heathen world ?

 

They don't think about it past the "evil hearts of men/our nation is being punished for not following the Bible so nothing you can do" line of thought.

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

But people did flip out in the good old days.  What changed is the weapons available. Who is to say that if high powered rifles, and bump stocks and AR whatevers (forgive my ignorance about guns) were available back then that people wouldn't have used them? 

 

There are plenty of people today who don't run out and shoot a few people. I don't think the difference between how I would deal with my problems and how a shooter deals with them is related to anything other than gun availability. The person who would flip out in 2017 is the one who would have flipped out in 1957 or 67 or 77. He or she just has better weapons now. We have more media access as well as guns that can do more damage. People didn't change. People's access to weapons and instant information changed. 

 

And I do see that you've endorsed change. I'm just responding because you quoted me and didn't want to appear to be ignoring you. 

 

We also had more (for lack of a better term) "socially acceptable" ways for people to take out their anger and rage back in the old days.  I imagine more than a few people who beat slaves, lynched others, murdered Native American women and children, burned black communities, etc. have traits similar to some of our mass shooters.

 

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

It's more in the wording, Chocolate. Of course by saying "accepting" I do not mean anyone has to change his or her beliefs about something. I am just saying we can accept that other people view something as relevant in a certain context even if we don't. When wording seems to be harshly attacking a person though, rather than debating the topic, I don't think anyone benefits. It tends to spiral down into a virtual shouting match and just becomes ugly.

I enjoy a good debate and I like to read varying viewpoints. It's much easier to follow when we don't have personal attacks interspersed with posts addressing the topic.

 

 

It would also be a better debate if people didn't try to insert their pet issues into the middle of the discussion. 

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

Fair enough.

Allow me to rephrase: Your wording suggests you don't think abortion is relevant in the context of this debate. To others, however, it is. We can accept both stances politely.

 

 

We can be polite, but considering the "we have mass shootings because we allow legal abortions" has no logical basis or anything that supports that position, we can criticize it and we do not have to accept it.

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

I find it chilling to hear the deaths of innocent people justified as the wages of sin. Absolutely chilling. 

 

The "God is judging us" crowd claims it bothers them also but more in a self-flagellation kind of way.

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

California isn't the entire country, so please don't make a general statement about there being increases in gun control without specifying you mean increases in California only. Out of curiosity, what are the increased gun control laws you have seen in the past ten years in California? How have they restricted gun ownership of law abiding citizens? I'm wondering if anything they have done could be done on a national scope. 

 

I do think this is a national issue, not a state issue. 

 

Particularly since we have freedom of travel and no checkpoints at state borders. 

 

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

Tibbie, since you're asking an honest question, I will answer you honestly as a theologically conservative (though non-dominionist) Christian.

 

Over 900,000 human beings are killed by abortion every year in this country. About 53 million have been killed since Roe v. Wade. 

 

Our military invasions have led to the deaths of thousands more. In Iraq alone, there have been over 179,000 violent deaths of civilians since 2003.

 

I don't think people in the past were holier. I don't glorify any part of American history. I think it's been a mess since the start, to be honest. 

 

It is absolutely true that this nation deserves judgment. Sometimes when nations embrace sin, God gives them over to the natural consequences of it. It's not a popular thought, but based on my understanding of Scripture, it's a true one. 

 

My two cents. 

 

ETA: As to why God waits, I agree with what Cindy alluded to earlier: 

 

"...Do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance....consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation." 2 Peter 3

 

Yet other nations that have legal abortion and participated in the invasion of Iraq don't have mass shootings.  God seems to be issuing sporadic judgements.

 

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

You deliberately misunderstand what I'm saying, and you deliberately misinterpret it.  Willful, dangerous ignorance, if you will. 

 

Criminals will always get their hands on whatever weaponry they need or want *because* they are criminals.  The rest of us law-abiding citizens be disarmed to whatever degree the law requires *because* we are law-abiding, and criminals will have their way.

 

Making high powered weapons with high capacity magazines easily accessible to all also impacts how easily "criminals" can get those weapons. 

 

I honestly can't recall mass shootings with assault style weapons prior to the late 80s, which also coincides with the time they started becoming easily available. 

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

I, for one, do not believe the "good ole days" were easier. However, even in the face of war, depressions, etc. people seemed to behave differently. Perhaps community was not just a nice word but it was more practiced and lived out than we experience today. With our 5000 gadgets to "connect" with others, we find ourselves more isolated than ever.

Christians were sinners then and are sinners now. Nothing much changed in that respect.

 

Pogroms, holocausts and ethnic cleansings were certainly a different way of behaving.

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

The likelihood of the average person being able to successfully return fire after someone has started firing from behind them with a semi-automatic high capacity weapon is absurdly low.  Most churches cannot afford armed security patrols during services, and we are well and truly ****ed as a nation if that is what it takes to be safe in church.

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

 

The fact that the typical talking points got dusted off while bodies were still warm on the ground is gross and oh so predictable. I’m not going to engage in this merry go round on guns yet again, but Scalia does deserve defending of his jurisprudence and the consistency behind it.

 

When don't we have warm bodies on the ground from mass shootings?

[Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(]

QFT

And prayers for the families of the victims, for the church, and for the little town. Let them heal.

 

Okay.  Just pretend we are discussing the other mass shootings we were told we couldn't talk about at the time.

[HOA Neighborhoods and trick or treat]

Where I grew up, the local municipalities decided what night would be the official TOT night. It was either a Friday or Saturday night. It was rare that it actually fell on Oct. 31. Different places handle things differently.

 

Interesting.  Where I grew up TOT was never on a Friday (a large % of the town was at the football game) or Sunday (church).  I can't recall if we ever went TOTing on Wednesdays but it s possible that night was out as well.

[What do you think about bitcoin?]

The major argument is that a government issuing a fiat currency has an incentive to increase the money supply, decreasing the value of the currency people hold, and making it easier for the government to pay back any debt it has incurred.  The idea is that the amount of Bitcoin available can not be manipulated by a government entity or even a single entity for that matter.

 

That's a poor argument as a the value of Bitcoin has already demonstrated it can fluctuate greatly, which seems to diminish its value as will likely need to be converted into fiat currency at some point.  And as we saw at different times in history with the gold and silver markets, valuations of non-fiat currency can easily be manipulated by small cadres of private actors.

 

Bitcoin and the like will have value in a digital world, but I see no scenario in the near term where they become prevalent in day to day life.

[What do you think about bitcoin?]

I understand it fairly well.  But I think that something that goes against an idea (tangible currency) that has been around for 2000+ years is going to take a while to catch on,  Perhaps it will start to take off with this new generation who has only grown up with this sort of technology.  I'm 36, and I think I will live to see the day when it takes over paper and metal.

 

We are already effectively replacing paper currency with digital for a large number of transactions.  I am not certain we will need the cryptos to be viable to see then end of physical currency in our extended lifetimes.

[What do you think about bitcoin?]

Bitcoin, or other cryptcurrencies, will likely serve a purpose in the future (10+ years).  I am not sure why anyone believes a privately controlled digital currency will somehow be better than fiat physical currency, but I assume it has to do with a misapplied libertarian worldview.

 

We do have a small cryptocurrency portfolio, but those markets definitely have bubble tendencies and anyone jumping in now should be cautious. (Bubbles are a great time to make money as long as you aren't the last one out of the pool when the lifeguard blows the whistle.)

[My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question]

I know nothing about he statistics about rape reports being proven true or false, but I don't think it's comparable to robbery or murder, because in the case of rape, we know that the vast majority of victims knew the perp.  Therefore if an arrest / conviction did not occur in those cases, what would be the reasons?  Cases where the perp could not be identified or found would be the small minority, so the rest would be what?  Victim recanted or not enough evidence to charge / indict / convict?

 

Prosecutors sometimes have their own biases and won't prosecute on behalf of women who they think got what they deserved.  Others sometimes don't believe they have enough evidence to successfully prosecute or don't think the victim is sympathetic enough.  There are also some who would like to prosecute but know their judges and jury pools well enough to understand that a conviction is unlikely and they don't want to put the victim through the trial.  Finally, sometimes victims (and their families) decide going through a trial is not worth the expected outcome.

FWIW, when you see child molesters get soft sentences it is often for one, or a combination of, the factors above.

[My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question]

Ok....according to RAINN website, only about two percent of rape reports made to the police are ever proven true. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

Now you take the 2% of proven true rape reports and compare it to the 2-10% i’ve proven not true reports, you cannot just assume that the 90% unproven either way reports or actually proven to be true proven to be false. This means that statistically you’re either getting just as many false reports that you are getting real reports or statistically you’re getting five times as many false reports as real reports.

 

Can you point out the data that says "proven to be true"?  I can't find it on that link.

 

Also, 619 out of 1000 robberies are reported to the police.  167 of those lead to an arrest.  Do you assume the robberies that did not lead to an arrest were false reports?

[My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question]

And nobody advocated that.

 

 

So why is it when rape is discussed one of the first things brought up is the concern about false accusations?

[My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question]

Of course both are bad. One is just a bigger problem than the other. That doesn't mean that one is less bad.

 

From my quick search, I see studies citing false reports of rape at 2% to 10%. So, 90% to 98% of rapes that actually get reported are legitimate/founded etc. And then there are the unreported rapes as well. So, people are focusing on the 90% problem.

 

Even the few false reports, as documented,  do not make it all the way through the investigative process to the court proceedings. So amongst the minority few of false reports, even fewer make it court. Does it affect these men, of course. 

 

It comes across in these conversations, though, like someone who is pitching a fit over the herd of dust-bunnies under the couch while standing in a mound of trash in the middle of the living room floor. No one wants a herd of dust-bunnies, but can we focus on the bigger problem first? Especially since that trash has been rotting there, relatively ignored, for a looong time. 

 

^^^This.

 

There are also false allegations of child sexual abuse, but the appropriate response to those is not to assume every kid who says they were abused is lying.

[Kids Halloween costumes and race]

It’s often someone in the majority culture presuming to speak for the minority and telling others what hurts them, though.

 

Or is it that those in the minority are often dismissed until other voices join them?

 

 

[Kids Halloween costumes and race]

Or all the anti-Catholic caricatures like "slutty nun" Halloween costumes. We put our big girl pants on and ignore them.

 

lol Yes, the Catholic Church has been so victimized.

[My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question]

You parent the children you have. I'm not the least bit concerned about my boys assaulting girls. I am, however, concerned that they not put themselves in a situation where they are vulnerable to false accusation because the fact is that happens sometimes. And given some of the stuff that has occurred on campuses, I'd be negligent not to discuss it with them. But the idea that having that concern and those conversations with them means I'm not equally concerned about girls is utter nonsense. It's not either/or. People can be concerned about multiple things at the same time.

 

We have had the same conversations and others related to consent, but I honestly don't worry about my sons being falsely accused of sexual assault.

[My McJudgy obnoxious observation and question]

BS.

 

Nope, and her absurd Cadillac analogy made it clear.  She says she is only saying certain clothing makes women "targets" (which isn't true) but in the end that comes back to "if you wear it then it's your fault of something happens".  Which FWIW is exactly the argument defense attorneys used to make in rape cases.  "What were you wearing?  Why were you wearing that?  Didn't you wear that knowing those clothes would entice men?"