Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[SKL]

They are supposedly so easy to make...yet people don't.

 

Go figure.

 

 

Actually, when I was a kid, the boys in my neighborhood used to make small bombs on a regular basis.  They knew much more about bomb making than boy scout knots etc.  Mostly the bombs were used to experiment, occasionally to be a nuisance.  There was no malice like you would see in a school or church bombing, at least to the extent I was aware.

 

But if someone had wanted to do a lot of damage to a lot of people, it really would have been easy to do it with a homemade bomb or three.  The fact is that most bomb-makers simply didn't want to hurt people.

 

Of course there have been bombings of schools, houses of worship, etc.  Guns seem to be the most popular method these days, but if the goal is to harm people and create chaos, a gun is not needed.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am claiming an ORDER OF SEIZURE was issued.  Do you need the link again?

 

It wasn't an order of seizure.

[SKL]

I just want to double check and see if I am clear re: the new talking point ITT.

 

One side is arguing that acquiring the materials and then safely assembling, transporting, and planting a bomb is super easy relative to purchasing multiple semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines and using it in a mass shooting.  This side also contends that stricter gun control will lead to a large number of mass bombings even though there is no evidence of a similar rash of bombings in western nations with strict gun control.

 

Do I have this right?

 

If so, how about if we actually try to get rid of the weapons that are most efficient for mass shootings and see if this actually does happen.  Would we be any worse off?

 

There is less violence in most developed countries regardless of gun control.  As shown in an earlier link, internationally the rate of violence decreases as the number of guns per capita increases - and I'm not saying that is causation, just that the opposite argument does not hold true.  The US is an outlier in that analysis - which indicates that the high rate of violence in the US is attributable to something other than the number of guns.

 

I don't disagree with banning guns that have little use other than mass harm.  But I don't believe that addresses the reason why we have more violence per capita in the USA.  Getting rid of certain kinds of guns (or all guns for that matter) won't change the hearts of violent people.  So violence will continue until we identify and address the other factors.

[Liz CA]

Writing like CR does:

 

 

Incorrect. 

 

Per close military sources and family lore*, b o m b s are not hard to make at all, even before the internet. 

 

* * * * *

 

Reverting back to the way I usually communicate:

 

I'm going to disagree with you. 

 

*A generation before the internet, a kid in my in-laws' neighborhood left an unwanted souvenir in my in-laws' roof after an explosive experiment.  Aside from leaving a gift they didn't find until years later when the roof was being replaced, the  p i p e b o m b the kid built was a smashing success in that it didn't kill him.  (He had detonated it remotely at the bottom of the neighborhood ravine.)

 

Not that hard.

 

Unfortunately, there have been multiple, verified accounts of bomb making by teens just in my metro area. One LEO told me there was - at the time - a very detailed video online with step by step instructions. So the hope that bombs are not that easy to make is likely futile as much as I would like to join some of you in this belief.

There have "always" been quite a few bombs used when there was a mass attack in Eastern or Western Europe while I lived there and afterwards. I don't think it's so far fetched to think that it could become the new weapon of choice.

To me, it does not necessarily mean we should not take a look at what gun laws need to be consistently enforced, tightened, material taxed, etc., but beware that this will not prevent mentally ill people from acting out and potentially killing others. The more is revealed about this particular shooter, the more bizarre it gets.

 

 

[Bootsie]

The first question is nonsensical within the framework of this conversation so I will ignore it.

 

Yes, I do believe we need to look at banning the sale of weapons with high capacity magazines for private use.  Even though it is just a dream, I believe we should also look at a mandatory buyback of those same weapons.

I am not sure how my first question is nonsensical.  You suggested,  "If so, how about if we actually try to get rid of the weapons that are most efficient for mass shootings and see if this actually does happen.  Would we be any worse off?"

 

I was trying to clarify what you meant by trying "to get rid of".  So, if weapons with high capacity magazines are banned for private use, who will be allowed to have them?  Military?  FBI?  Sheriff?  Park rangers?  University police department? Security companies?  Body guards?

[Halftime Hope]

First, thank you for your time and for engaging civilly.  I really appreciate that. 

 

Second, There's so much to respond to.  A large portion of your post is really about competing views of Constitutional interpretation:  originalist or ?? [not a widely-recognized, good, single descriptor] progressivist??    Scholars have been arguing about this for years, as have politicians, the judiciary, and just about everyone else.   So I'm moving on. 

 

I'll comment on a few things in your post; min comments are bolded.  (Also, not trying to persuade, just commenting. )

 

Honestly, I don't think that saying that a militia should be trained (if that is indeed what was intended, there is a difference of opinion), precludes the federal or state government from enacting laws to ensure that the training takes place and that people are accountable for the training and, by extension, what they do with their firearms.  To follow your example of the clock - a regulator clock is a clock that utilizes a pendulum, which is subject to the laws of physics.  You lost me in this first paragraph.  ??

 

<snip>   Actually lots of snipping for brevity.

 

 It cannot be said that the authors of the constitution intended it to include semi-automatic weapons, because such a thing did not exist.  

 

The Supreme Court disagrees.  They think the Founders' intention can be extrapolated to weapons that did not exist, and although I haven't found the original place they've ruled this way, apparently this latest ruling is a restatement of a prior ruling saying that. (...reading and learning...)  They ruled in Caetano vs. Massachusetts (2016) that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those the were not in existence at the time of the founding."  Granted, the decision in Caetano was not about much demonized "assault rifles", but about a stun gun, but the Supreme Court wrote their decision in 2016 and it is illogical to think that their wording in the decision, and the implications flowing from it, was not very carefully considered.

 

It is the role of the legislature to apply [bolding mine] the constitution to our current situation...   Huh??  No, they are to create laws, which are then tested against the Constitution if needed.  And to control the purse strings.

 

 

That is what needs to happen - what do we do now to improve the situation? Agreed.

 

 

Well thought out regulations do  not lead to the surrender of rights unless our entire system breaks down. We must assume the system will not break down and work within the system. Only when the system fails should we look outside of the system for solutions (doomsday scenarios).   No to the max.  I will not assume that the system will not break down.  It is 100% historically predictable that the system will break down and that people will need to defend themselves either due to lack of government (for any number of reasons) or against the tyranny of the government.  I hope to God it is not in my lifetime or that of my children or grand-children.  But when it comes, an armed populace is a wonderful deterrent to tyranny and a strong inducement to conciliation.

 

This is a bit of aside, but bear with me. Conservative Christianity teaches that Scripture is infallible in it's original languages and that it should be interpreted literally. I often wonder if people are applying that same standard to the Constitution of the US. If so, it is certainly a result of the conflating of religion and civil governance. 

 

Interesting thought, but for me, no. Absolutely not.  I don't know exactly what *you* mean by "interpreted literally" regarding Scripture.  I believe every word is true, but not that "Herod is a fox," is meant literally. LOL!  I also believe in obedience to God, as revealed in Scripture, out of love.  I believe that one *can* know and understand Scripture, as the Holy Spirit instructs us.  It is not so open to varied interpretation as to be meaningless.   I think it is much easier to live well with intimate knowledge of Scripture, and of the God who is revealed in it, than without it.

 

I won't even put the Constitution in the same paragraph.  I'd like everyone to have a basic understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it would be great if they studied and understood in the context of thought in the time period.  (My daughter took a Biola high school course called "Foundations of American Thought" that developed the great ideas regarding natural law, rights, social compact, property, liberty,  economy, and so on, from earlier writers down through the Founding Fathers, and a bit of later American thought, too.  I'd love to have the syllabus and go over that again for myself!)   I think one can live well without even a passing personal knowledge of the Constitution, but it is difficult to engage in public policy life without that knowledge as a foundation. 

 

As far as similar beliefs about Scripture and the Constitution, I'll have to see if I have an epiphany about how they might be similar or different.  I'm all out of epiphanies tonight.  :-)

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[ChocolateReignRemix]

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NATL-GUARD.pdf

 

What other words are required to make it an order to seize arms?

 

Remember what I said about context?  The words after those matter.

"...that may be required by the military forces for the performance of this emergency mission..."

 

None were needed so none were taken from the gun stores or other retailers. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Unfortunately, there have been multiple, verified accounts of bomb making by teens just in my metro area. One LEO told me there was - at the time - a very detailed video online with step by step instructions. So the hope that bombs are not that easy to make is likely futile as much as I would like to join some of you in this belief.

There have "always" been quite a few bombs used when there was a mass attack in Eastern or Western Europe while I lived there and afterwards. I don't think it's so far fetched to think that it could become the new weapon of choice.

To me, it does not necessarily mean we should not take a look at what gun laws need to be consistently enforced, tightened, material taxed, etc., but beware that this will not prevent mentally ill people from acting out and potentially killing others. The more is revealed about this particular shooter, the more bizarre it gets.

 

 

Bombs are so easy to make and/or use yet no one seems to do it where guns are not readily available. 

[Liz CA]

Bombs are so easy to make and/or use yet no one seems to do it where guns are not readily available. 

 

Well, I can only tell you what I personally know from local incidents that came across my desk. The teens that made bombs didn't evidently have access to guns because it would have been easier / faster to terrorize the neighborhood with a gun when you don't have to build it first. However, in the absence of guns they seemed to have chosen incendiary devices.

 

[Halftime Hope]

They are supposedly so easy to make...yet people don't.

 

Go figure.

 

 

ChocolateReign, that's a Teflon response, swiveling your argument ever so slightly so you can sliiiide out of accountability for what you said, like an argumentative teenager.

 

Several of us have made the accurate point that your statement was factually wrong, and yet you haven't had the grace or humility to acknowledge that you were wrong. And in this thread, and many others, dogmatic. And abrupt. And pretty consistently rude in the tone in which you post.

 

I know you are participating on this topic, but won't you please rather engage us as equals in civil discussion, and join us in being accountable for our words, clarifying when needed, and adjusting when we've overreached?

 

Please?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

ChocolateReign, that's a Teflon response, swiveling your argument ever so slightly so you can sliiiide out of accountability for what you said, like an argumentative teenager.

 

Several of us have made the accurate point that your statement was factually wrong, and yet you haven't had the grace or humility to acknowledge that you were wrong. And in this thread, and many others, dogmatic. And abrupt. And pretty consistently rude in the tone in which you post.

 

I know you are participating on this topic, but won't you please rather engage us as equals in civil discussion, and join us in being accountable for our words, clarifying when needed, and adjusting when we've overreached?

 

Please?

 

 

I am sliding out of nothing.  The claim is that bombs are easy to make and use and that stricter gun control will not do anything to reduce mass murders for this reason.

 

I am simply asking if this is true, why have we not seen large numbers of bombings in places like Europe/Australia?  In fact, why don't we see noticeable numbers here?  Is it possibly because the jump from instructions on the internet to actual use of the device is not as easy as is claimed?

 

And cease with the lectures.  Thanks.

[Liz CA]

I am sliding out of nothing.  The claim is that bombs are easy to make and use and that stricter gun control will not do anything to reduce mass murders for this reason.

 

 

Well, speaking for myself, this is not my claim. I don't think enforcing gun laws consistently, tightening laws, taxing materials, etc., will "not do anything to reduce mass murder" but rather if / once we have done this, mentally ill people will look for alternatives and bombs are certainly capable of inflicting a lot of harm.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, speaking for myself, this is not my claim. I don't think enforcing gun laws consistently, tightening laws, taxing materials, etc., will "not do anything to reduce mass murder" but rather if / once we have done this, mentally ill people will look for alternatives and bombs are certainly capable of inflicting a lot of harm.

 

I agree with that, which is why I think we should do what we can to make it difficult for them to achieve their goals.  Even though it isn't perfect, we have put laws in place to try and control who can access large amounts of ingredients like ammonium nitrate in an effort thwart those who may want to inflict a lot of harm.  Shrugging our shoulders after the OKC bombing and saying "wellwhatttayadotheevilheartsofmenandall" would not have been an acceptable response.  All I am saying is that continual mass shootings deserve more than the shoulder shrug.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Bluegoat]

Re, making a bomb - I don't think making a bomb is hard.

 

Making a bomb that will do what you want at the right time, without blowing yourself up, is trickier.

[SKL]

I am sliding out of nothing.  The claim is that bombs are easy to make and use and that stricter gun control will not do anything to reduce mass murders for this reason.

 

I am simply asking if this is true, why have we not seen large numbers of bombings in places like Europe/Australia?  In fact, why don't we see noticeable numbers here?  Is it possibly because the jump from instructions on the internet to actual use of the device is not as easy as is claimed?

 

And cease with the lectures.  Thanks.

 

We do see bombings, they just don't get as much air time on the news.

 

And as noted multiple times earlier, there is less violence in general in other similarly developed countries than in the US, which is not correlated with gun ownership.  That would logically relate to bombings too.

 

[Halftime Hope]

I am sliding out of nothing.  The claim is that bombs are easy to make and use and that stricter gun control will not do anything to reduce mass murders for this reason.

 

I am simply asking if this is true, why have we not seen large numbers of bombings in places like Europe/Australia?  In fact, why don't we see noticeable numbers here?  Is it possibly because the jump from instructions on the internet to actual use of the device is not as easy as is claimed?

 

And cease with the lectures.  Thanks.

 

Anyone who wants can go read the posts themselves and follow the argument, see post #654 and following.

 

In #658 you said, "bombs and the like simply aren't easy to make and the level of planning needed is a lot more than what you need to kill 26 people with guns." 

 

Several of us, addressing only your first clause, pointed out, factually, that bombs are very easy to make, that we know of children making them with readily obtained, non-specialty, non-restricted materials, and in the case I cited it was a bomb that was detonated remotely. (No, I don't know how.)

 

Your response was indeed a non-response, a swivel, a "slide" out of being confronted by fact.  When cornered by fact, you did the sarcastic sidestep, twice:

 

"bombs are so easy to make/and or use, yet no one seems to do it where they are not readily available."  Post #702

 

"they are supposedly easy to make, yet people don't.  Go figure."  Post #709.

 

You sidestepped any acknowledgement that you were not entirely correct.

 

 

And as a side note:  in places where guns are not readily available, people use trucks and vans, and acid.  And bombs. And knives.

 

 

Finally:  I and other posters will continue to call you out for incivility when it is appropriate to do so.  I was hopeful that appealing to you would be effective, and I chose my words carefully.  Apparently to no avail. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[8circles]

Anyone who wants can go read the posts themselves and follow the argument, see post #654 and following.

 

In #658 you said, "bombs and the like simply aren't easy to make and the level of planning needed is a lot more than what you need to kill 26 people with guns." 

 

Several of us, addressing only your first clause, pointed out, factually, that bombs are very easy to make, that we know of children making them with readily obtained, non-specialty, non-restricted materials, and in the case I cited it was a bomb that was detonated remotely. (No, I don't know how.)

 

Your response was indeed a non-response, a swivel, a "slide" out of being confronted by fact.  When cornered by fact, you did the sarcastic sidestep, twice:

 

"bombs are so easy to make/and or use, yet no one seems to do it where they are not readily available."  Post #702

 

"they are supposedly easy to make, yet people don't.  Go figure."  Post #709.

 

You sidestepped any acknowledgement that you were not entirely correct.

 

 

And as a side note:  in places where guns are not readily available, people use trucks and vans, and acid.  And bombs. And knives.

 

 

Finally:  I and other posters will continue to call you out for incivility when it is appropriate to do so.  I was hopeful that appealing to you would be effective, and I chose my words carefully.  Apparently to no avail. 

 

Get off your high horse, HH. You've had several posts directed to CR personally which are condescending, with sarcastic jabs, and just downright rude yourself.

 

Hey Liz - where's the lecture on being civil?

 

All of these conversations are just a joke. With so many people fighting for the right to do nothing - who are smart enough to make that do-nothingness sound intellectual, as if it is somehow noble - what hope do we have? None.

[TechWife]

Perhaps for the same reason that the current background checks didn't prevent this guy from buying a gun or Adam Lanza from getting a hold of a gun that he didn't legally purchase?

 

You’re conflating scenarios. The system worked to remedy a violation of constitutional rights. The gun control system doesn’t work because it is inefficient at enforcing the current laws, which in and of themselves, are too weak and need to be strengthened.

[hornblower]

I really cannot wrap my head around the two recurrent themes which arise from the no gun control side. 

1) people argue that the bad people will always get stuff, now we're talking about bombs etc etc etc. OK, taken to the logical conclusion, are you not arguing that people should be allowed to own everything (including drugs)? Why can't people buy a bomb at a bomb show? I mean if you ban it, people can just make it and they'll find a way of getting it anyway..... 
Why not a surface to air missile? 
Why not a nuclear weapon?  

Cause it seems to me the entire argument is predicated on a piece of paper written long ago and that definition of arms has been stretched an awful lot since so it seems really arbitrary to me to where you are drawing the line. 

 

2) everyone seems to mention mental health and then shrug and that seems to be the end.  If you're convinced mental health is the problem, why is there not a concerted effort led by 2A enthusiasts for widespread free mental healthcare? It's a public health emergency so why are you not pouring money into a public mental health system with parenting classes, adolescent counsellors, marriage counsellors, psychologists all available at subsidized rates and all working to prevent violence through teaching communication, boundaries, and alternatives to toxic masculinity? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Anyone who wants can go read the posts themselves and follow the argument, see post #654 and following.

 

In #658 you said, "bombs and the like simply aren't easy to make and the level of planning needed is a lot more than what you need to kill 26 people with guns." 

 

Several of us, addressing only your first clause, pointed out, factually, that bombs are very easy to make, that we know of children making them with readily obtained, non-specialty, non-restricted materials, and in the case I cited it was a bomb that was detonated remotely. (No, I don't know how.)

 

Your response was indeed a non-response, a swivel, a "slide" out of being confronted by fact.  When cornered by fact, you did the sarcastic sidestep, twice:

 

"bombs are so easy to make/and or use, yet no one seems to do it where they are not readily available."  Post #702

 

"they are supposedly easy to make, yet people don't.  Go figure."  Post #709.

 

You sidestepped any acknowledgement that you were not entirely correct.

 

 

And as a side note:  in places where guns are not readily available, people use trucks and vans, and acid.  And bombs. And knives.

 

 

Finally:  I and other posters will continue to call you out for incivility when it is appropriate to do so.  I was hopeful that appealing to you would be effective, and I chose my words carefully.  Apparently to no avail. 

 

I can't find any evidence of children manufacturing and using bombs in the past 20 years which successfully murdered large numbers of people similar to what we are seeing in mass shootings.  I am struggling to find any successfully used to kill small numbers of people FWIW.

I stand by those statements in 702 and 709.  If one of your arguments is that gun control will be ineffective because "mentally/depraved people will just make bombs", it is fair to wonder why we don't see evidence of this already.  My position is that we don't because GUNS ARE EASIER TO USE TO MURDER LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE.  I also believe that even if people will switch to other means, then let's make them!  Seriously.  The weapon of choice seems to be (particularly certain types of) guns for a reason, so let's at least take those away. 

 

You have attacked me and mocked me numerous times.  It needs to end now or I will assume I am allowed to respond in kind.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

You have attacked me and mocked me numerous times.  It needs to end now or I will assume I am allowed to respond in kind.

 

No, she has not.

 

She has been, in fact, extremely careful not to attack you or mock you, but rather to disagree respectfully.  I find that admirable.

[Murphy101]

So there's a gun store in the middle of a shopping strip. Usual precautions against theft along the store front. (Guns in cases, bars on windows, ...) So someone drove an SUV through the walls of the two stores on the end of the strip next to it to enter it through the connecting wall and stole 15 AR15s.

 

Daaaaamn.

[OH_Homeschooler]

We do see bombings, they just don't get as much air time on the news.

 

And as noted multiple times earlier, there is less violence in general in other similarly developed countries than in the US, which is not correlated with gun ownership.  That would logically relate to bombings too.

 

 

Like the Boston Marathon?

[TechWife]

First, thank you for your time and for engaging civilly.  I really appreciate that. 

 

Second, There's so much to respond to.  A large portion of your post is really about competing views of Constitutional interpretation:  originalist or ?? [not a widely-recognized, good, single descriptor] progressivist??    Scholars have been arguing about this for years, as have politicians, the judiciary, and just about everyone else.   So I'm moving on. 

 

I'll comment on a few things in your post; min comments are bolded.  (Also, not trying to persuade, just commenting. )

 

It's hard to keep track of a conversation when someone responds within the quotes, so I copy/pasted your responses here. I am responding in blue. 

ETA: I've never noticed this before, but there is an arrow showing where I did the copy/paste. When I click on the arrow, it takes me back to the post where you responded. Maybe this will be helpful to someone who wants to track the conversation back.

 

TechWife, on 09 Nov 2017 - 2:50 PM, said:

Honestly, I don't think that saying that a militia should be trained (if that is indeed what was intended, there is a difference of opinion), precludes the federal or state government from enacting laws to ensure that the training takes place and that people are accountable for the training and, by extension, what they do with their firearms.  To follow your example of the clock - a regulator clock is a clock that utilizes a pendulum, which is subject to the laws of physics.  You lost me in this first paragraph.  ??

I'm not sure why. Well regulated = trained and enacting laws to make sure people are accountable for that training and, by extension, how they use their firearms. 

 

<snip>   Actually lots of snipping for brevity. 

I may to the same, I'm not sure. 

 

 It cannot be said that the authors of the constitution intended it to include semi-automatic weapons, because such a thing did not exist.  

 

The Supreme Court disagrees.  They think the Founders' intention can be extrapolated to weapons that did not exist, and although I haven't found the original place they've ruled this way, apparently this latest ruling is a restatement of a prior ruling saying that. (...reading and learning...)  They ruled in Caetano vs. Massachusetts (2016) that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those the were not in existence at the time of the founding."  Granted, the decision in Caetano was not about much demonized "assault rifles", but about a stun gun, but the Supreme Court wrote their decision in 2016 and it is illogical to think that their wording in the decision, and the implications flowing from it, was not very carefully considered.

 

I had forgotten about Caetano vs. Massachusetts. 

 

District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) stated that: 

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time†finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

So, being that the second amendment right is not unlimited and historically, dangerous and unusual weapons could be prohibited, I suppose, given the case you cited,  we have reached the place where semi automatic weapons are no longer unusual. That's a scary place to be. How did we get here? I do think all guns should be considered dangerous, so I find that part of the wording odd. 

 

It is the role of the legislature to apply [bolding mine] the constitution to our current situation...   Huh??  No, they are to create laws, which are then tested against the Constitution if needed.  And to control the purse strings. 

 

​The goal of the legislature is to write laws that will not be challenged in court. Therefore, they must apply the constitution to the laws they are currently creating, which address the current situation.  They cannot ignore it, they must understand and apply it to the current situation as they write laws. The fact that they do this is demonstrated by the fact that relatively few laws are challenged in courts. If they didn't apply the constitution to the laws they write, they would have a far larger number of laws challenged. 

 

That is what needs to happen - what do we do now to improve the situation? Agreed.

 

 

Well thought out regulations do  not lead to the surrender of rights unless our entire system breaks down. We must assume the system will not break down and work within the system. Only when the system fails should we look outside of the system for solutions (doomsday scenarios).   No to the max.  I will not assume that the system will not break down.  It is 100% historically predictable that the system will break down and that people will need to defend themselves either due to lack of government (for any number of reasons) or against the tyranny of the government.  I hope to God it is not in my lifetime or that of my children or grand-children.  But when it comes, an armed populace is a wonderful deterrent to tyranny and a strong inducement to conciliation.

 

I just don't see the necessity of thinking like this. While I don't have a problem with gun ownership for self defense, anticipating anarchy or a drastic change of governance model is not how I choose to go about my life.  It must be stressful at times. It does bring to mind the question of how many guns are adequate for personal defense? One per household member? Two? Ten? How do you decide? 

 

This is a bit of aside, but bear with me. Conservative Christianity teaches that Scripture is infallible in it's original languages and that it should be interpreted literally. I often wonder if people are applying that same standard to the Constitution of the US. If so, it is certainly a result of the conflating of religion and civil governance. 

 

Interesting thought, but for me, no. Absolutely not.  I don't know exactly what *you* mean by "interpreted literally" regarding Scripture.  I believe every word is true, but not that "Herod is a fox," is meant literally. LOL!  I also believe in obedience to God, as revealed in Scripture, out of love.  I believe that one *can* know and understand Scripture, as the Holy Spirit instructs us.  It is not so open to varied interpretation as to be meaningless.   I think it is much easier to live well with intimate knowledge of Scripture, and of the God who is revealed in it, than without it.

 

I won't even put the Constitution in the same paragraph.  I'd like everyone to have a basic understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it would be great if they studied and understood in the context of thought in the time period.  (My daughter took a Biola high school course called "Foundations of American Thought" that developed the great ideas regarding natural law, rights, social compact, property, liberty,  economy, and so on, from earlier writers down through the Founding Fathers, and a bit of later American thought, too.  I'd love to have the syllabus and go over that again for myself!)   I think one can live well without even a passing personal knowledge of the Constitution, but it is difficult to engage in public policy life without that knowledge as a foundation. 

 

As far as similar beliefs about Scripture and the Constitution, I'll have to see if I have an epiphany about how they might be similar or different.  I'm all out of epiphanies tonight.  :-)

 

This is the first time I've openly discussed this idea, though it's been at the back of my mind for a long time. As a Christian, I am truly concerned for the future of the church in America. Many of my fellow Christians (that I personally know) seem very confused about the role of faith in politics. They seem to equate their Christian faith with adherence to a particular set of political stances. I have just wondered if that adherence has caused confusion in regards to how they view the Constitution. FWIW, I don't think Scripture and the US Constitution are at all similar in regards to how they should be viewed by Christians. They are two completely different things with different purposes, different origin, different authorship. One is the inspired Word of God, the other a governance document created by man. They aren't even close to each other in importance. 

SaveSave

Edited November 10, 2017 by TechWife

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No those words don't matter.  The government is not more entitled to what the citizens own simply because it "may be required by military forces."   That people seem to think it's ok that an order was issued to seize arms simply because they "may be required by military forces" and oh, you know they didn't take any anyway so that's ok too......that just kinda makes me go :confused1:

 

I suggest you look up statutes relating to declarations of emergency and martial law.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So there's a gun store in the middle of a shopping strip. Usual precautions against theft along the store front. (Guns in cases, bars on windows, ...) So someone drove an SUV through the walls of the two stores on the end of the strip next to it to enter it through the connecting wall and stole 15 AR15s.

 

Daaaaamn.

 

We had a rash of gun store thefts here recently.  Similar MO.

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ktgrok]

So should they have left weapons just sitting in a banded houses after Katrina? Rather than confiscate them, as you put it? And no, the order doesn't concern me after Irma because it was explained what it actually means.

So, it doesn't invoke feelings that the order was even issued? Not even a little bit? Well...there you go.

 

Katrina....do you know there every single one seized was returned? Those same police that we worry about playing judge and jury, they automatically returned every single firearm and didn't "lose" a single one?

 

A lawless time?

 

Isn't that the time when it's most important for people to protect themselves? Isn't that the time when it's most important for people to NOT rely on law enforcement who are otherwise occupied?

[Bootsie]

Well, I can only tell you what I personally know from local incidents that came across my desk. The teens that made bombs didn't evidently have access to guns because it would have been easier / faster to terrorize the neighborhood with a gun when you don't have to build it first. However, in the absence of guns they seemed to have chosen incendiary devices.

 

Of course, I do not know the details of this incident, but I do not see how you can conclude that someone made a bomb because they did not have access to a gun.  Yes using a gun may have required less work.  They would not have had to build it.  But, I am under the impression that learning to use guns requires a learning curve.  I think some young people think a bomb sounds more exotic and would "enjoy" the process of making it. 

 

Although a gun and a bomb can both be used for damage, I wonder if the mindset of someone who uses a gun and someone who uses a bomb is different.  Using a gun seems to take a lot less involvement on the front end (you don't have to make the gun) but the person is directly involved in aiming and firing the gun.  Using a bomb requires more involvement in making the bomb, but the actual attack is less targeted at a specific person.   

[Bootsie]

Why are so many of us stuck on saying stricter laws won't stop mass murders? Why not worry about the thousands who are killed yearly in single incidents? What about the 3( I think) women per day who are murdered by their partner, usually by gun? What about the number of toddlers who find a weapon and kill themselves or another child?

There are solutions to these things, it's not only to stop mass murderers. Does seem easier to defend guns, tho, concerning these large killings..than saying well that toddler would have found the gun anyway, he could easily have killed his baby brother with a knife.

And if really is just because we're a nation of sinners and there's no way to change it, God's upset or in charge( take your pick) then why do you need more guns to protect yourself? If it's futile it's futile, if it's in God's plan then why change it?

I agree that if we are really concerned with the loss of life due to firearms, that the loss of life in shootings not considered "mass shootings" is a much bigger problem and addressing it, statistically, would go much further in saving human life.  

 

One place where I have a problem with gun control is if we say that individuals cannot have a gun for self-protection, do we allow "professionals" to use guns?  I have trouble imagining a society where we say a woman cannot have a gun, if she desires, to shoot an intruder.  But, if Bill Gates has the money to hire professional body guards, who are armed, he can.  

[hornblower]

 

 

One place where I have a problem with gun control is if we say that individuals cannot have a gun for self-protection, do we allow "professionals" to use guns?  I have trouble imagining a society where we say a woman cannot have a gun, if she desires, to shoot an intruder.  But, if Bill Gates has the money to hire professional body guards, who are armed, he can.  

 

Just as a point of interest, in Canada you cannot have armed bodyguards no matter how rich you are. If you need such protection, you need to arrange it with the police. 

 

Most security guards are unarmed. You can have armed guards for cash (the armoured car bank people) or in some jewelry stores. They need special permits and can actually still be charged if they shoot someone. They have to be protecting the valuables and be in immediate threat. If they shoot someone running away with valuables, they could still be charged with murder as they wee not under threat.  Armed guards are pretty rare here. 

 

Handguns of course are also very rare here. Rifles and shotguns are more common but we have stricter limits on magazines. 

 

 

 

[TechWife]

 

One place where I have a problem with gun control is if we say that individuals cannot have a gun for self-protection, do we allow "professionals" to use guns?  

 

No one has said that individuals should not be allowed to have a gun for self-protection. No one, I repeat, no one, is going in this direction. Strengthening gun control laws does not mean that individuals won't be able to have a gun for self defense. Effective gun control laws do not have to lead to a "slippery slope" of eliminating existing rights of the citizenry. That is why we have a system of checks and balances. 

[Bluegoat]

I agree that if we are really concerned with the loss of life due to firearms, that the loss of life in shootings not considered "mass shootings" is a much bigger problem and addressing it, statistically, would go much further in saving human life.  

 

One place where I have a problem with gun control is if we say that individuals cannot have a gun for self-protection, do we allow "professionals" to use guns?  I have trouble imagining a society where we say a woman cannot have a gun, if she desires, to shoot an intruder.  But, if Bill Gates has the money to hire professional body guards, who are armed, he can.  

 

You don't have to go that route.  You could easily say that Bill Gate's bodyguards can't have them either.

 

In other countries it isn't usual for civilians to have gun-carrying bodyguards, unless they are actually in the position of needing a police escort.  Which for us means the PM and visiting dignitaries who have an RCMP escort.

 

The only kind of security guards that can have a gun here are the types that guard armoured cars and such, and there are a lot of restrictions on that.  They have to have special training, work for specific firms, and they have a lot of restrictions around using their firearms.

[6packofun]

Has anyone read this article?  I thought it was interesting, no matter where you stand on the issue.  I'd be interested in hearing some responses to it...be sure you read the whole article. Does it leave anything out? Does it misrepresent anything? Did you learn anything?  http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/359363-What-if-there-were-serious-gun-controls%3F

 

I think there are many smaller things that can be done and should be done even if they only close a "loophole" or workaround that has been used ONCE.  In the church shooting, the killer's domestic abuse background wasn't a red flag because it occurred while he was in the military and for some reason that charge didn't translate into domestic abuse  or something like that and so he was allowed to purchase a gun when he should have been prevented.  I don't know how many times people have been able to buy a gun because of this particular issue, but I'm totally willing to shut that DOWN and support the necessary changes. That's a flaw in the system that needs to be taken care of.  (I don't have detailed knowledge of how this all works so if I'm simplifying or getting it incorrect, feel free to correct this!)

 

I think a lot of conservatives like myself are NOT against "gun control" solutions like this that are common sense because they are so straightforward.  Many of us can possibly be convinced to support other things, too.

[poppy]

Having trouble quoting/posting from my phone.

 

The biggest issue for me isn’t that there shouldn’t be changes. It’s that I want to be sure that the changes are sensible. I have said a few times there are plenty of changes I DO support. I support research into better safety tech. I support requiring and/or incentivizing gun safes. I support waiting periods. I support better enforcement of the laws we have. I support plenty of stuff.

 

I don’t support knee jerk reactions to ban X and ban Y and let’s enact laws like they have in other countries because obviously whatever works there will automatically work here and I don’t actually know what x gun is or what Y accessory does but we should still ban it.

 

Bump stocks for example. Generally speaking, I would probably be in favor of banning them. I can’t for the life of me figure out why they exist. BUT since most gun owners do not desire to kill a whole bunch of people, I figure there must be some reason that the accessory was created. I just don’t know what that is. Now that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t still be in favor of banning it. I am just saying that I think it’s important to make sure we know what all the factors are before we go banning a bunch of stuff.

Do you think no one ever think to ask ‘why are these being sold ‘. We just hear they were involved in a killing , jerk that knee and say ban? Cmon. We can’t talk if you assume everyone else is a moron.

 

The answer you seek is that it wasn’t banned because it was sold to regulators as a ‘goofy little doodad’. I’m sure purchasers like the Vegas shooter knew the actual intent . Obviously manufacturers and sellers did as well. But our gun regulation is so weak that a piece designed deliberately to skirt the law was allowed to be sold. And is still legal. - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/investigations/the-goofy-little-doodad-approved-under-obama-that-was-used-in-las-vegas-carnage/2017/10/04/3a1a2104-a935-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html

Edited November 10, 2017 by poppy

[hornblower]

 

I don’t support knee jerk reactions to ban X and ban Y and let’s enact laws like they have in other countries because obviously whatever works there will automatically work here and I don’t actually know what x gun is or what Y accessory does but we should still ban it.

 

 

This is pretty derogatory towards advocates of various gun control measures. It claims their positions are knee jerk and uninformed. 

 

 

 

[Murphy101]

This is pretty derogatory towards advocates of various gun control measures. It claims their positions are knee jerk and uninformed.

 

I agree it can seem that way and yet.....

 

Every time one of these threads comes up, the same facts have to be stated bc people do not seem to know them.

 

Facts like AR does not mean assault rifle.

Facts like semi-automatic does not mean machine gun shooting ability

Facts like yes, this is a hunting rifle. One of the most popular hunting rifles at that.

Facts like there are laws that should prevent some of these cases. Especially THIS case that apparently was a cluster in every way that could have prevented this tragedy.

 

When we keep having to state those facts and it seems to fall of deaf ears, it does seem like the other side is uninformed and being knee jerk.

 

It’s just as bad and unhelpful as a side seeming to toss their hands up and declare nothing stops criminals so why bother.

[ktgrok]

I do agree that people should at least understand terms when discussing a subject. 

 

I think the biggest misconception is what IS a semi automatic weapon. A regular pistol holding 6 rounds is a semi automatic gun. Now, if people want to ban hand guns we can discuss that, but I think it does need to be understood that semi automatic doesn't just mean things like an AR. 

 

What I think people REALLY are concerned about it magazine capacity...that might be a better talking point. 

 

Honestly though, I gave up after Newton. We own multiple guns, including ones people would say should be banned. But we are in favor of a LOT LOT LOT stricter gun control. But I doubt it will happen. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by ktgrok

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree it can seem that way and yet.....

 

Every time one of these threads comes up, the same facts have to be stated bc people do not seem to know them.

 

Facts like AR does not mean assault rifle.

Facts like semi-automatic does not mean machine gun shooting ability

Facts like yes, this is a hunting rifle. One of the most popular hunting rifles at that.

Facts like there are laws that should prevent some of these cases. Especially THIS case that apparently was a cluster in every way that could have prevented this tragedy.

 

When we keep having to state those facts and it seems to fall of deaf ears, it does seem like the other side is uninformed and being knee jerk.

 

It’s just as bad and unhelpful as a side seeming to toss their hands up and declare nothing stops criminals so why bother.

 

The bolded is not a fact.  The AR platform was not designed with hunting as the primary purpose, and I have not seen a source citing those designs as being among the most popular hunting rifles.  (I read your last link on this btw.)  I do agree they are used more for hunting than in the past, but there is nothing those guns can do that has not been accomplished by literally hundreds of other models.  There is no need for high capacity magazines when hunting.

 

[Bootsie]

I am not a gun enthusiast; in fact, I have never held a gun.  I did not even let my children play with water guns.  I have been in a situation that has caused me personally to wrestle with where I stand on these issues.  I was simply going about my career as a college professor when I had a student who was unstable.  Much of the nightmare was like something in a movie.  I had a direct line to an officer at the homicide department of the San Antonio police department to report various incidents.  I was teaching a class on one of the air force bases when base police came and pulled me out of the classroom because of safety issues (to the point that they had the bomb squad checking out my car before I could start it).  I had the homicide detectives encouraging me to arm myself.  I chose not to, but I am not sure that I would want to make it more difficult or more expensive for someone else to do so in a similar situation. 

 

The young man had a medical military discharge in his mid 20s.   He had been highly trained in using weapons.  Now with the classification of a "disabled vet" he had easy access onto military bases.  

 

He was highly intelligent.  He knew exactly what to do and what not to do to make a threat that was not considered an arrestable "threat."

 

The papers he was writing for another professor had a lot of "red flags" but, again, nothing that would be arrestable (or preclude him from buying guns)

 

I knew his family had guns; his dad was a hunter; his dad was green beret; he had grown up around guns.  In this situation should his parents be precluded from owning guns?  Should his sister not be able to own a gun?

 

He had been banned from the university campus where I taught; at the beginning of the semester the armed campus police guarded the bookstore (where large sums of money were being transacted) and could not leave that post to respond to his being seen in a campus building--the money was the important thing to protect.

 

He was hired as a security guard--what more could they ask for than a clean cut, disabled vet?  He participated in a community "citizens ride with cops" program--all of these things giving him more access to weapons.  

 

My parents were encouraging me to quit my job in the middle of the semester and move back to the state where they lived to get away from the situation.  Anytime there was news of a shooting, the first thing we did was listen to see if it was his name.

 

I do not like the fact that he had access to the weapons he did; I do not hear much regarding gun law reform which would have really been an effective deterrent in this case.  I do hear some things that would make it more difficult for a victim in a case like this to have a gun.  Should they have to wait 30 days?  What if someone in their own family had a mental illness?  What if they had a drug conviction 20 years previous?  What if they had suffered from post-partum depression?  Would they have to pay a high tax on ammo?

 

My choice was NOT to arm myself due to personal beliefs, but I do not know that I want to make it more difficult for others to do so if that is how they choose to handle these difficult situations.  It also made me leery of how well the armed government officials would protect me in this situation (for example, the base police would not follow up and fingerprint the huge spikes placed behind my tires on the base because no property damage occurred because they were discovered before I rolled over them)

 

(The only reason I am willing to say any of this on a public forum is that this particular individual is now deceased.)

[SKL]

Yeah, I am in favor of rational (and enforced) gun laws, including laws that would have made it harder for some of the recent incidents to happen.

 

What I am opposing is the attitude that when it comes to gun control, more is better, and if we could just ban all guns the problem of mass murders would go away.

 

Honestly, I think that approach is just as lazy as the "just enforce existing laws" approach.  Maybe lazier, because let's be honest, it isn't going to happen.  Even in countries with fairly strict regulations, there are many privately-owned guns, and besides, we have the 2nd Amendment, which isn't going away.

 

What we need is a rational approach to gun laws AND other action that addresses the intent to do violence in the first place, and how we handle people like this.  We have areas in our country that are like Canada or Australia in terms of violence, and others that are like Mexico, and everything in between.  I don't think people on either side of this debate really understand the cause and prevention of violence in the USA.  "Guns or no guns" is just a gross and useless simplification.

[poppy]

We do see bombings, they just don't get as much air time on the news.

 

And as noted multiple times earlier, there is less violence in general in other similarly developed countries than in the US, which is not correlated with gun ownership.  That would logically relate to bombings too.

 

 

Can you cite a source for this - violence not correlated to gun violence?  We have 350+ mass shootings a year.

[Liz CA]

Is there anyone in the thread that has stated they want NO gun control?

 

I feel this is the fundamental misunderstanding in this thread.

Gotta go to work. Work is always interfering...:)

 

[Word Nerd]

I agree that if we are really concerned with the loss of life due to firearms, that the loss of life in shootings not considered "mass shootings" is a much bigger problem and addressing it, statistically, would go much further in saving human life.  

 

In a previous thread, similar comments were dismissed as "NRA talking points." 

[Bootsie]

In a previous thread, similar comments were dismissed as "NRA talking points." 

I am confused, are you suggesting that I dismissed these in a previous post?  Or, simply that someone else dismissed them?

[KungFuPanda]

People have been going to church in this country for 400+ years, and guns have been around for just as long. Church shootings are a relatively recent development. One has to look at the anti-Christian rhetoric which has pervaded our society. It's out and out hatred, and it has spead like a cancer. This is not what our culture was like when I was a child.

 

This is the problem, not the gun, and it needs to be confronted and stopped.

I used to feel this way. I grew up in a house with responsible gun use and ate many meals provided by that gun cabinet. I was in the military. I’m not gun shy. I checked out of the conversation for about twenty years because my mind was made up. When I checked back in I was horrified to see the TYPE of weapons civilians were stockpiling in their own homes. THESE guns have absolutely NOT been around for 400 years and it is ridiculous to own something when its only purpose is to kill a lot of people quickly. That’s just crazy.

[EmseB]

Can you cite a source for this - violence not correlated to gun violence? We have 350+ mass shootings a year.

One almost every day? What is considered a mass shooting in that statistic?

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678

[SKL]

Can you cite a source for this - violence not correlated to gun violence?  We have 350+ mass shootings a year.

 

I linked a source in a prior message.  I meant not correlated to gun ownership, at the international comparison level.

 

[Word Nerd]

I am confused, are you suggesting that I dismissed these in a previous post? 

 

No. Sorry that was unclear. I meant I agreed with your post but have seen similar valid concerns dismissed in other threads.

[Carol in Cal.]

One almost every day? What is considered a mass shooting in that statistic?

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678

4 or more shot and killed is my understanding of the criterion.

Most of them are domestic violence--horrible, huh?  Crazy messed up stuff.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Bluegoat]

This is pretty derogatory towards advocates of various gun control measures. It claims their positions are knee jerk and uninformed. 

 

 

 

I don't think that's true.  Bad laws can be passed as a result of backlash after some kind of incident, and it happens at times.  So it really is something to be wary of.  It wastes money and also energy.

 

We had a law passed here after a cyber-bullying death that was quite swiftly declared unconstitutional.

 

We have a few odd gun laws in Canada where particular firearms were made illegal because of incidents, even though others that have the same capability are still legal.  

 

It was always a big question whether the firearms registry was anywhere near as effective as putting all that money into anti-smuggling or anti-gang initiative would have been.

 

People can really want to do something, but it isn't always what will be most useful.