Jump to content

Menu

Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(


Liz CA
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah. I hear this conversation, too. But I donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t know how people think that will help.

 

If I had a CC license, I still would not want to go about my life as if IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m on constant alert and expect to have to use my weapon at any moment. Would I have gone to Costco yesterday packing heat? If so, presumably, I would be on alert and watching for any indication that someone will need to be fended off with firepower at any moment. Other than law enforcement or military personel, who wants to live life in this manner? Who wants to go to church, a concert, a ball game, a bike ride, the post office - all with the notion that nowhere is reasonably safe and at any moment, I might have to fire at someone before twenty congregants are killed?

 

*IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m not arguing with YOU, dmmetler. IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m using your post as a jumping-off point of my own frustrations.

 

I don't see it that way.

 

I have myself and my kids learning TKD, not because we believe this place is extremely unsafe and we expect to beat people up in order to save our lives, but to be able to should the need arise.

 

I teach my kids to swim, not because I expect us to be stranded in the ocean someday, but because it seems better than not knowing how to swim should the need arise.

 

We wear seat belts, not because we expect to be in a devastating accident, but because we'd rather be restrained in the unlikely event that happens.

 

At no time are we mentally playing out a horrible scene where we need to use our combat skills to survive, or where we have a massive accident that we barely survive thanks to our seat belts. 

 

And the people I know who CC don't "live their lives in that manner" either.

 

That said, I'm not desperately rushing to sign up for shooting lessons ASAP because I think I'm gonna die without them.  I do plan to do that someday though, and to have my kids do it as well if I feel they become mature and responsible enough while I have any say so about it.  In my family, the majority have learned to handle and shoot a gun and they are all pretty mellow people.  Nobody is thinking "oh boy I have a gun, I wonder if I'll need to shoot anyone today."

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - lots of code words in there. I hear you, loud and clear.

 

You can't bother with saving lives from gun violence because Americans are going down the path of immorality. Gay marriage and abortion are the big ones, but also because of "Happy Holidays", Grey's Anatomy & Game of Thrones. A pastor clued me in to those evils. True story. All proof that we are "a people bent toward immorality as a group". So we all suffer until Jesus comes. But at least we have our guns.

 

I don't think that's really a fair response to Arctic's post. Most of what she said was scriptural and true. I'm often on the opposite side of AM politically, but I think you aren't giving her enough credit. 

 

We do need to repent, all of us. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday afternoon we were at cheer practice and this was on CNN in the parent's room. Almost half the moms mentioned that they have concealed carry permits or plan to get them, and are teaching their kids to shoot once they're considered old enough.

 

My DD said many of her college classmates made similar comments this morning and that her psychology class basically got taken over by discussion of the topic.

 

They don't feel safe. Not at church, school, on the streets, at home, anywhere.

 

And the idea of a house of worship not being safe and people feeling they need a gun to protect themselves in their churches, temples, mosques, synagogues... I mean, it's called a Sanctuary for a reason.

 

That's really interesting! If I could just suggest, I think the increase in CC and having security plans is *promoting* a sense of sanctuary and safety. I don't go to church and worry, because I know people have plans. It's one thing off my mind because somebody else made the effort.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice. ThatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not what she said. Arctic has been here long enough to know sheĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the person you are accusing her of being.

 

Wow - lots of code words in there. I hear you, loud and clear.

 

You can't bother with saving lives from gun violence because Americans are going down the path of immorality. Gay marriage and abortion are the big ones, but also because of "Happy Holidays", Grey's Anatomy & Game of Thrones. A pastor clued me in to those evils. True story. All proof that we are "a people bent toward immorality as a group". So we all suffer until Jesus comes. But at least we have our guns.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really interesting! If I could just suggest, I think the increase in CC and having security plans is *promoting* a sense of sanctuary and safety. I don't go to church and worry, because I know people have plans. It's one thing off my mind because somebody else made the effort.

Many other people view it as security theater. Like cursory bag checks at a concert or removing your shoes at the airport, the reduced risk is infinitesimal while the General increase in anxiety, the sense of being stalked and threatened, is enhanced.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to derail or change the subject away from guns - but maybe we can ponder two aspects at the same time...I cannot help wondering what different thought processes are motivating people today versus  - 50 or more years ago?

 

Guns have been legal for many years in many places - why have mass shootings increased in recent decades?

Depression, family issues, financial hardship etc. existed then too. What has caused people to deal with it differently now?

I mentioned in my first few posts the subject of media exposure - and if not outright "glorification" at least worldwide coverage. This may be contributing in some instances but it cannot really be the only reason for mass murder?

Have we become more violent as we are supposedly have become more civilized? We typically view conditions and lifestyles of 100 years ago as less "refined" and "enlightened" as we are today, yet was there less actual violence? If so, what has changed?

Are video games / TV / etc to be blamed?

Mental illness has also been around since time immemorial. Can we just explain this with increasing incidents of mental instability?

 

Just to clarify: I am truly wondering and posing questions. None of these thoughts should be misconstrued to relate to gun law debate. This is more of a post about behavioral, psychological issues.

 

I don't have data to answer that accurately, but I'll throw in a sorta related observation. The survival rates on the battlefield are dramatically higher now than in the past, so you've got this increase in people coming back with really, really significant challenges. So could go into questions about the VA and why this guy wasn't getting better care. My dad is a vet, so I notice differences in care between states. So in this particular case, with this particular guy, you could ask what would have helped him. I don't know about Texas' VA system. I know our system here in Ohio has its pros and cons but is not well-liked. We have radical limits on services and you have to drive HOURS to receive services. My dad literally could not come live near me and be near his grandkids, because I could not arrange him the care he needs. Sucks. And maybe for some people, kills.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many other people view it as security theater. Like cursory bag checks at a concert or removing your shoes at the airport, the reduced risk is infinitesimal while the General increase in anxiety, the sense of being stalked and threatened, is enhanced.

 

Oh I don't know. Is it that way at your church? At the churches I know with policies, people don't feel that way. It's not talked about a lot and kids aren't aware. It just involves some quiet policy changes. Things look pretty much like they did before, just a little enhanced and more intentional. People don't want in and go oh wow, you mean I have to go thru metal detectors to get to church??

 

But wait, people go through security to get into Disney, and people don't go wow, ruined the experience. Usually they say THANKS for keeping us safe and feel SAFER and MORE RELAXED.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's really a fair response to Arctic's post. Most of what she said was scriptural and true. I'm often on the opposite side of AM politically, but I think you aren't giving her enough credit. 

 

We do need to repent, all of us. 

 

She is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong but she hasn't. Based on prior conversations she has had here, this is a correct assessment. 

 

Her post didn't read like theology, it read like political talking points. It was disgusting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t. YouĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re just fitting what I say to the view you already hold, not understanding what IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m actually trying to communicate.

 

We have reasonable laws. We could add ten more and justify it all the day long. It will not stop unreasonable people, because the laws are not binding to those who will not obey them.

 

And the 1002th time has been reached.

 

Yet nobody will explain why this isn't the case in the rest of the world. Why are we different in a way that would cause this divide?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand why this type of thing seems crazy to you. I know you are very consistent about non-violence in your own life. I admire that, just like I admire Christians who adhere to principles of nonresistance. I just can't, at this time, accept that there aren't times in which it is necessary--even good--for someone to stop an evil, murderous person with an equally effective tool.

I worked in border services for years. We weren't armed then and by the time I left I was in adjudication and refugee determination but some of the positions I held early on are staffed by armed people now.  I can't imagine doing that now. I'd have had to quit if I had to do that .. 

 

I worked alongside RCMP a fair bit as they had their detachment in the same building and we used to go for coffee with them all the time because these were small places and it would have been odd not to. I cannot tell you how squirmingly uncomfortable I was sitting beside them, no matter how much I liked the individuals .... 

 

And fwiw, I'm really conflicted about what is right to do when and I'm not entirely convinced I'd be all pacifist when it came down to it. If the US decided to try to annex Canada I can't quite envision myself going peacefully. But that would be war. 

 

I guess where we really differ is that I don't think the world is a war zone.

 

I can sort of see how it might soon be and for that I blame certain groups and nations... but that definitely would be super political so I'd better stop. 

 

I always like hearing from you MercyA :) 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did say it was wrong. YouĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re incapable of hearing what IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m actually saying, because of your own biases. Happens to a lot of us, depending on the subject. Ridiculousness doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t need a response.

 

Which part exactly?

 

Much of my post quoted your phrases exactly. And you have posted at least once about the problem only being solved with the return of Jesus.

 

I hear everything that you are saying. I would say you can't hear yourself. I am not a stranger to your POV, I used to hold it right down to the denial of what I was saying. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's adhere to debating the issue rather than attacking each other. Many people here have many different viewpoints. This is the inherent nature of a forum.  Ad hominem attacks do not enrich the discussion. It would be nice to be able to read all responses eventually and not have this locked up by moderators.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The survival rates on the battlefield are dramatically higher now than in the past

 

 

 

 

speaking of battlefield survival rates..... the last US administration launched a national Stop the Bleed campaign. 

 

"Advances made by military medicine and research in hemorrhage control during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have informed the work of this initiative which exemplifies translation of knowledge back to the homeland to the benefit of the general public."

 

There is nationwide training available for the general public. Seconds matter and a bystander can save a life.  

 

This is a concrete, helpful, and hopefully non political way everyone can try to reduce the death toll. 

 

http://www.bleedingcontrol.org/

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if you've ever personally known someone who carried. My dad is a liberal peacenik. He shot a bird once when he was young, and the experience so bothered him that he was never interested in hunting. He is tender-hearted. He sticks up for the poor and for people who are mentally disabled. He likes Jane Austen movies and animals and kids. He also works at a business where he is sometimes alone at night. He has carried at times there, and also at church. He feels it is his responsibility to help keep the people he loves safe. He is well-trained. He has thought long and hard and carefully about exactly when he would be willing to use his gun.  He and others like him have made me feel safer. 

Every person who CC's doesn't fit this mold. I know LOTS & LOTS of people who CC. They, not a one of them, make me feel safe about having guns around. They are usually a stereotypical patriarchal idiot who has dreams of being the hero. 

The world *is* a war zone. I hate it. I hate war and every kind of violence. But I am grateful some people are willing to take steps to protect others. I admire the guys in Texas who took off after the killer. 

I'm also grateful that people are willing to protect other people. This comes in many forms, only very few of which involve guns. 

I do not live in a war zone. Full.Stop.

There is nothing particularly sacred to me about a Christian church building. I'm also not aware of any New Testament Scripture that teaches me to have any special reverence for the structure or space inside it. It's not like a Jewish temple. It's just a place to meet. We could just as well meet outside or at someone's house. 

 

 

Nope, it's not the building, it's the activities you do there. Carrying a gun - unnecessarily, therefore making everyone around you statistically less safe - is not appropriate during worship. Anything that you are doing during worship that makes people around you less safe is inappropriate. 

Edited by 8circles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was tried in a Court Martial, when he was in the U.S. Air Force, for assaulting his wife and kid and he was given  one year of Confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge. He was an Atheist. He was a heinous person. Horrible tragedy for those he murdered and their families. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t. YouĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re just fitting what I say to the view you already hold, not understanding what IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m actually trying to communicate.

 

We have reasonable laws. We could add ten more and justify it all the day long. It will not stop unreasonable people, because the laws are not binding to those who will not obey them.

 

And the 1002th time has been reached.

Our laws regulating prescription and over the counter drugs, driving, drinking, seat belts and fishing are stricter than our laws regulating firearms. That isn't reasonable. Putting ten more laws into place and (here is the kicker) enforcing them as strongly as say, traffic tickets, would be an excellent way to slow down gun violence. Gun violence incidents are crimes of opportunity as well as passion.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's adhere to debating the issue rather than attacking each other. Many people here have many different viewpoints. This is the inherent nature of a forum.  Ad hominem attacks do not enrich the discussion. It would be nice to be able to read all responses eventually and not have this locked up by moderators.

 

Let's start by not calling people trying to do something "gross" and accusing them of taking advantage of tragedy to advance a political agenda.

 

I'm all for it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was tried in a Court Martial, when he was in the U.S. Air Force, for assaulting his wife and kid and he was given one year of Confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge. He was an Atheist. He was a heinous person. Horrible tragedy for those he murdered and their families.

Lanny, you know better than that. Atheist does not automatically equal heinous, wife beating, mass murderer.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t say that. He had a list of things the shooter was. Separated by periods. He did not say that the things were related to one another, but that they all described that man.

 

Lanny, you know better than that. Atheist does not automatically equal heinous, wife beating, mass murderer.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t say that. He had a list of things the shooter was. Separated by periods. He did not say that the things were related to one another, but that they all described that man.

 

 

He was tried in a Court Martial, when he was in the U.S. Air Force, for assaulting his wife and kid and he was given one year of Confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge. He was Gay. He was a heinous person. Horrible tragedy for those he murdered and their families.

 

He was tried in a Court Martial, when he was in the U.S. Air Force, for assaulting his wife and kid and he was given one year of Confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge. He was Black. He was a heinous person. Horrible tragedy for those he murdered and their families.

 

He was tried in a Court Martial, when he was in the U.S. Air Force, for assaulting his wife and kid and he was given one year of Confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge. He was evangelical. He was a heinous person. Horrible tragedy for those he murdered and their families.

 

Replace atheist with the word of your choice. The inference quickly becomes clear.

Edited by Barb_
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was tried in a Court Martial, when he was in the U.S. Air Force, for assaulting his wife and kid and he was given  one year of Confinement and a Bad Conduct Discharge. He was an Atheist. He was a heinous person. Horrible tragedy for those he murdered and their families. 

 

He was also a man. He was also white. He had ties to Christianity.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick of hearing mourning people be berated for not having the same kneejerk gun control views feverishly advocated as the beraters.

 

There are no less than three issues here.

 

One is the straightforward mourning of senseless or even of purposeful violence.  That, IMO, should be respected enough not to be politicized.  If there is a political aspect to it that led to this action, that's part of the mourning for sure.

 

Another is the issue of gun control.  IMO, while that issue comes to the forefront when there is an incident like this, it should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

Another is the issue of why mass murder is so much more common than that it used to be, despite increases in gun control.  Like the gun control issue, that should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

The kneejerk reversion to screaming at mourners for not immediately advocating banning of guns is just like the Vietnam War protesters' practice of going to burn American flags at cemetery funerals of soldiers, or like the Westboro Baptists' demonstrations consigning gay people to hell at their own funerals. 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a credible source showing he was an atheist?

 

he had apparently 'liked' a couple atheist pages on his fb account and some friends claimed online that he had been making negative comments about religion to them. 

 

But he also claimed he had been assistant teacher at a bible school in 2013; one could just as easily say he was having a crisis of faith. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he had apparently 'liked' a couple atheist pages on his fb account and some friends claimed online that he had been making negative comments about religion to them. 

 

But he also claimed he had been assistant teacher at a bible school in 2013; one could just as easily say he was having a crisis of faith. 

 

Interesting.

 

I am a xian.

 

Sometimes atheists have true and good things to say {gasp}. You know, just like other people.

 

Sometimes I say negative things about religion. Because religion isn't inherently or always good and perfect.

 

Although, now that I think about it, people that I know who have more fundamentalist beliefs would definitely say they weren't sure I was a xian. So I guess it isn't surprising that he is labelled an atheist.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick of hearing mourning people be berated for not having the same kneejerk gun control views feverishly advocated as the beraters.

 

There are no less than three issues here.

 

One is the straightforward mourning of senseless or even of purposeful violence.  That, IMO, should be respected enough not to be politicized.  If there is a political aspect to it that led to this action, that's part of the mourning for sure.

 

Another is the issue of gun control.  IMO, while that issue comes to the forefront when there is an incident like this, it should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

Another is the issue of why mass murder is so much more common than that it used to be, despite increases in gun control.  Like the gun control issue, that should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

The kneejerk reversion to screaming at mourners for not immediately advocating banning of guns is just like the Vietnam War protesters' practice of going to burn American flags at cemetery funerals of soldiers, or like the Westboro Baptists' demonstrations consigning gay people to hell at their own funerals. 

 

I'm sick of people dying. 

 

That isn't a knee-jerk reaction.

 

Who is screaming? I think we're all crying.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much contempt, scolding, and berating in this thread that it sounds like screaming, not crying.

And I am not saying not to do it, although I do think that there are far better ways to convince than that.

I'm just saying that it shouldn't be in the mourning area.

 

To the extent that you're crying, I am very sorry for your grief. I honestly did not see it. This is horrible all around.  (( 8circles ))

 

 

 

Who is screaming? I think we're all crying
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick of hearing mourning people be berated for not having the same kneejerk gun control views feverishly advocated as the beraters.

 

There are no less than three issues here.

 

One is the straightforward mourning of senseless or even of purposeful violence.  That, IMO, should be respected enough not to be politicized.  If there is a political aspect to it that led to this action, that's part of the mourning for sure.

 

Another is the issue of gun control.  IMO, while that issue comes to the forefront when there is an incident like this, it should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

Another is the issue of why mass murder is so much more common than that it used to be, despite increases in gun control.  Like the gun control issue, that should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

The kneejerk reversion to screaming at mourners for not immediately advocating banning of guns is just like the Vietnam War protesters' practice of going to burn American flags at cemetery funerals of soldiers, or like the Westboro Baptists' demonstrations consigning gay people to hell at their own funerals. 

Now is not the time!!

 

Neither was after Vegas. 

Or after Sandy Hook.

Or after Columbine.

With that logic, every mass murder buys the the pro-gun-rights crowd more time to play the self righteous card.

Can you see the irony in that POV? Even a little?

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much contempt, scolding, and berating in this thread that it sounds like screaming, not crying.

And I am not saying not to do it, although I do think that there are far better ways to convince than that.

I'm just saying that it shouldn't be in the mourning area.

 

To the extent that you're crying, I am very sorry for your grief. I honestly did not see it. This is horrible all around.  (( 8circles ))

 

The fact that you hear people wanting change and yet you don't see that we are mourning is, frankly, weird.

 

We are in mourning and wanting to do things that will change our culture so this doesn't happen anymore, or at least reduce the frequency - and we're accused of being gross and taking advantage of tragedy for our political agenda. It's disgusting.

 

I would use caps but then I'd rightly be accused of screaming at people. I want to scream at people. 26 people were shot in church. Mass shooting #307 in this calendar year, unless there was another one today, which is not out of the question.

If people don't take that in and want to actually do something about it, I don't give a rat's ass if they feel my contempt, feel scolded or berated. They are responsible for their do-nothingness, not me. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another is the issue of gun control. IMO, while that issue comes to the forefront when there is an incident like this, it should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

Another is the issue of why mass murder is so much more common than that it used to be, despite increases in gun control. Like the gun control issue, that should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

What increases in gun control are you talking about? I havenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t heard of any increases in gun control since these mass shootings started. The first mass shooting I remember is Ohio State when I was a smalll child. I donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t remember any others up until Columbine. What increases in gun control have there been since Columbine? I remember very few changes in gun control on a national level. one was the Brady Bill, which was the start of background checks for gun purchases. It was passed in 1993 and enacted in 1998. I remember the assault weapons ban that was enacted in the 90Ă¢â‚¬â„¢s and expired in 2004, at which point they were again made available (this included the AR15). Columbine was in 1999. What, exactly, has happened on a national level in regards to increasing gun control since then? If something has happened, IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢d really like to know about it, please educate me?

Edited by TechWife
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What increases in gun control are you talking about? I havenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t heard of any increases in gun control since these mass shootings started. The first mass shooting I remember is Ohio State when I was a smalll child. I donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t remember any others up until Columbine. What increases in gun control have there been since Columbine? I remember very few changes in gun control on a national level. one was the Brady Bill, which was the start of background checks for gun purchases. It was passed in 1993 and enacted in 1998. I remember the assault weapons ban that was enacted in the 90Ă¢â‚¬â„¢s and expired in 2004, at which point they were again made available (this included the AR15). Columbine was in 1999. What, exactly, has happened on a national level in regards to increasing gun control since then? If something has happened, IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢d really like to know about it, please educate me?

 

I did not say national--you did.

There have been quite a few increases in CA's gun control laws in the last 10 years.  CA was already one of the most tightly regulated gun ownership states before that time, and much more so now.  But there is a cultural thing going on here, and the gun control increases are not effecting it that I can see.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If people don't take that in and want to actually do something about it, I don't give a rat's ass if they feel my contempt, feel scolded or berated. They are responsible for their do-nothingness, not me. 

 

All I'm saying is take this part elsewhere, and spare the mourners from your contempt where they are mourning if you don't want to be just like the examples I mentioned upthread.  Not don't talk about it at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is take this part elsewhere, and spare the mourners from your contempt where they are mourning if you don't want to be just like the examples I mentioned upthread.  Not don't talk about it at all.

 

No. I *am* a mourner. I will mourn here, just like all the other posters. You are welcome to not like the way I mourn.

 

There is NOTHING in this thread by advocates of stricter gun control which is anything like " the Vietnam War protesters' practice of going to burn American flags at cemetery funerals of soldiers, or like the Westboro Baptists' demonstrations consigning gay people to hell at their own funerals. "

 

That is beyond offensive, to describe people mourning by wanting to do something to prevent it happening again in such a way.

Edited by 8circles
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick of hearing mourning people be berated for not having the same kneejerk gun control views feverishly advocated as the beraters.

 

Ă¢â‚¬â€¹I honestly don't see anyone berating mourners (unless by mourners you mean anyone sad about what happened). People are saying that something has to be done, maybe they are blaming politicians, the NRA, even gun enthusiasts but noone is saying anything about the mourners.

 

There are no less than three issues here.

 

One is the straightforward mourning of senseless or even of purposeful violence.  That, IMO, should be respected enough not to be politicized.  If there is a political aspect to it that led to this action, that's part of the mourning for sure.

 

IÂ Ă¢â‚¬â€¹know people are talking about politicizing in this respect. Maybe that is what some are doing. Most I think are just shocked at a reminder of what should not be happening and speak out. Not the same thing.

 

Another is the issue of gun control.  IMO, while that issue comes to the forefront when there is an incident like this, it should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

Ă¢â‚¬â€¹Again, I don't quite see what you mean with "mourning area". I do agree - the funeral of a victim would not be the place to talk about gun control (unless one of the bereaved did so). But here on an internet forum? We are all shocked but I wouldn't call it a mourning area.

 

Another is the issue of why mass murder is so much more common than that it used to be, despite increases in gun control.  Like the gun control issue, that should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

Ă¢â‚¬â€¹There may be increases in gun control but guns also have become much more powerful. A hundred years ago it was just harder to kill so many. And of course media also plays a role (both in making one aware and in promulgating it)

 

The kneejerk reversion to screaming at mourners for not immediately advocating banning of guns is just like the Vietnam War protesters' practice of going to burn American flags at cemetery funerals of soldiers, or like the Westboro Baptists' demonstrations consigning gay people to hell at their own funerals. 

 

Ă¢â‚¬â€¹I don't think anyone is blaming mourners for not advocating gun bans. I would not expect anyone impacted directly to do anything in particular - they need time to heal. But the rest of us? We do not have that privilege. Noone is blaming the victims so it is quite different from your examples above.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I *am* a mourner. I will mourn here, just like all the other posters. You are welcome to not like the way I mourn.

 

There is NOTHING in this thread by advocates of stricter gun control which is anything like " the Vietnam War protesters' practice of going to burn American flags at cemetery funerals of soldiers, or like the Westboro Baptists' demonstrations consigning gay people to hell at their own funerals. "

 

That is beyond offensive, to describe people mourning by wanting to do something to prevent it happening again in such a way.

Oh yes there is, and you have defended it and doubled down, too.

 

Attacking your fellow mourners is what is beyond offensive.

 

There is no one here, I'll bet, that wouldn't want to 'do something to prevent it happening again'.  Maybe they don't all agree as to the means.  If not, that's a discussion for another place than the mourning/funeral.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I *am* a mourner. I will mourn here, just like all the other posters. You are welcome to not like the way I mourn.

 

There is NOTHING in this thread by advocates of stricter gun control which is anything like " the Vietnam War protesters' practice of going to burn American flags at cemetery funerals of soldiers, or like the Westboro Baptists' demonstrations consigning gay people to hell at their own funerals. "

 

That is beyond offensive, to describe people mourning by wanting to do something to prevent it happening again in such a way.

 

How about this...

 

One thread for people who just want to express their feelings of sadness but think there are no possible solutions except Jesus.

 

One thread for people who want to express their feelings of sadness AND ALSO want to discuss other feelings - including anger that so many people are unwilling to work towards solutions to our problematic gun culture which allows this to continue happening.

 

?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is take this part elsewhere, and spare the mourners from your contempt where they are mourning if you don't want to be just like the examples I mentioned upthread. Not don't talk about it at all.

 

At this point, after so many (plus they're getting larger in scope), if we do it your way we are going to have to label the two separate threads

 

Massacre: Prayers, mourning, and resignation (acceptance) only!

 

and

 

Massacre: Grief, anger, and activism, prayers and good thoughts assumed.

 

Only who will take option one? The option where you're resigned to it and accept it? And what good do our prayers and mourning without action do for the victims and their families, when they are not here and do not even know of our conversations? If we were on the ground there, we would somberly attend prayer vigils and take casseroles to the homes of the bereaved, and then do our "screaming" at rallies for the benefit of elected officials. But why do we need the distinction here? When support from their countrymen *should* mean solutions?

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes there is, and you have defended it and doubled down, too.

 

Attacking your fellow mourners is what is beyond offensive.

 

There is no one here, I'll bet, that wouldn't want to 'do something to prevent it happening again'.  Maybe they don't all agree as to the means.  If not, that's a discussion for another place than the mourning/funeral.

 

You'd bet wrong, because lots of people have expressed the opinion that we are helpless to fix the problem.

 

We aren't at a funeral.

 

I have attacked no one. Are you attacking me? I'm mourning, too.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Attacking your fellow mourners is what is beyond offensive.

 

 

 

*You* are attacking your fellow mourners by comparing them to people burning flags at funerals for soldiers or Westboro Baptists.

 

I agree, that is incredibly offensive. Maybe you should take it to another thread. Not where people are mourning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pov

 

We don't enforce the laws we have. I'm all for starting at that point.

 

I think a gun safety program and gun laws course should be required to get a permit.

I think a background check should be required to get a permit. And that anyone with a felony of any kind or a violent offense of any kind - should not be given a permit.

I think those who sell or give a gun to someone who does not have a permit or who fail to properly attain the permit - should be prosecuted as an accessory to any crime committed with that gun.

I think they should have to do that for EVERY gun purchase.

A 30 day permit turn around wouldn't hurt. No one NEEDS to buy a gun right now this very second or else. They can wait 30 days to get their permit/gun.

I think they should give financial incentive to register permits. (Bc I'm iffy on requiring a listing of gun owners.) For example, if you don't register your permit then the cost is $200. But if you do register your permit, it's 50.

A current gun permit should be required to buy ammo. And the permit could include an ammo limit per gun per season. Even a very liberal number of bullets and still not be what these mass killers are getting. Or a separate permit for ammo purchases. $50 for so many rounds bought in 4 months. $100 for so many more rounds. This would allow people to buy more during their favorite hunting season for example. And they could still stock pile, I suppose, but at considerable expense. Or instead of limited ammo permits. we could charge an ammo tax of say, .10 a bullet. Either way, the point is that it would be more expensive and thus their dollar wouldn't buy as much.

 

I don't know what to do about mental illness. We don't even provide mental health care in this country, so I'm dubious about how to even decide who is unfit mentally. Most of the obvious would hopefully be covered under the proposed background check. Such as drug use, domestic violence, and other either felonious or violent crimes. But most people with mental illness aren't interested in hurting anyone.

Edited by Murphy101
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there has to be a better way, and enforcing current laws would be a logical place to start. I took one of the courses required to obtain a conceal carry permit, and was surprised at the almost complete lack of hands on firearm instruction. I think you should have to prove your ability to safely handle a firearm before you can carry it around with you in public.

 

I would want to be careful not to burden those who hunt as a way to provide for their families. While I would not be opposed to making it more difficult to stockpile ammo, I wouldnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to add undue financial stress to those who hunt via an ammo permit.

 

 

My pov

 

We don't enforce the laws we have. I'm all for starting at that point.

 

I think a gun safety program and gun laws course should be required to get a permit.

I think a background check should be required to get a permit. And that anyone with a felony of any kind or a violent offense of any kind - should not be given a permit.

I think those who sell or give a gun to someone who does not have a permit or who fail to properly attain the permit - should be prosecuted as an accessory to any crime committed with that gun.

I think they should have to do that for EVERY gun purchase.

A 30 day permit turn around wouldn't hurt. No one NEEDS to buy a gun right now this very second or else. They can wait 30 days to get their permit/gun.

I think they should give financial incentive to register permits. (Bc I'm iffy on requiring a listing of gun owners.) For example, if you don't register your permit then the cost is $200. But if you do register your permit, it's 50.

A current gun permit should be required to buy ammo. And the permit could include an ammo limit per gun per season. Even a very liberal number of bullets and still not be what these mass killers are getting. Or a separate permit for ammo purchases. $50 for so many rounds bought in 4 months. $100 for so many more rounds. This would allow people to buy more during their favorite hunting season for example. And they could still stock pile, I suppose, but at considerable expense. Or instead of limited ammo permits. we could charge an ammo tax of say, .10 a bullet. Either way, the point is that it would be more expensive and thus their dollar wouldn't buy as much.

 

I don't know what to do about mental illness. We don't even provide mental health care in this country, so I'm dubious about how to even decide who is unfit mentally. Most of the obvious would hopefully be covered under the proposed background check. Such as drug use, domestic violence, and other either felonious or violent crimes. But most people with mental illness aren't interested in hurting anyone.

Edited by Cindy in FL.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it that way.

 

I have myself and my kids learning TKD, not because we believe this place is extremely unsafe and we expect to beat people up in order to save our lives, but to be able to should the need arise.

 

I teach my kids to swim, not because I expect us to be stranded in the ocean someday, but because it seems better than not knowing how to swim should the need arise.

 

We wear seat belts, not because we expect to be in a devastating accident, but because we'd rather be restrained in the unlikely event that happens.

 

At no time are we mentally playing out a horrible scene where we need to use our combat skills to survive, or where we have a massive accident that we barely survive thanks to our seat belts.

 

And the people I know who CC don't "live their lives in that manner" either.

 

That said, I'm not desperately rushing to sign up for shooting lessons ASAP because I think I'm gonna die without them. I do plan to do that someday though, and to have my kids do it as well if I feel they become mature and responsible enough while I have any say so about it. In my family, the majority have learned to handle and shoot a gun and they are all pretty mellow people. Nobody is thinking "oh boy I have a gun, I wonder if I'll need to shoot anyone today."

Carrying a firearm is a different type of protection from those things you list, though. My seatbelt is not going to suddenly strangle me because the car anticipated an accident or misread another driverĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s intentions. A gun is different because by the time one knows without a doubt that a perpetrator is committed to using deadly force, one or more people are already harmed or killed. So, the only way to use a gun to stop a perpetrator using a deadly weapon his or herself is to be alert and vigilant to the possibility that use of oneĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s own gun may arise at any time.

 

Look, I was reading some articles one time about Ă¢â‚¬Å“Home invasion.Ă¢â‚¬ Living where I do and being a not very large or powerful woman, the article was making me start to believe that my only option for confident safety would be to wear my firearm at all times and lock and alarm my house at all times. Well, IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m not going to live that way. I have some vulnerability. ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not awesome, but itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s just a reality of life.

 

A friend said, when the bicyclists were run down in NYC (last week? Whenever it was.), Ă¢â‚¬Å“If those bicyclists had been *Armed*...Ă¢â‚¬ But seriously? Are ten armed bicyclists going to turn around, notice they are being attacked with a truck, pull a gun, shoot the terrorist, and be home in time for dinner? (Not to mention in that case, the perp apparently intended to die, so the threat of being shot was no deterrent.) We (society) need to give up the B.S. notion that an armed non-criminal public somehow deters gun violence. It doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not hearing anyone here berating the mourners either.  I don't know a single person on this thread who strikes me as not having a compassionate heart.  It is a horrific situation.  But sometimes in the very midst of something so devastating, some people are motivated to try and enact change, in case there is anything, anything at all, that can be done to keep this from happening again.  It certainly doesn't mean that they are respecting the mourners any less.  

 

I think online, sometimes opinions come off as more extreme, since we don't have the human in-real-life presence to tone things down.  My guess is that people here -- even from across the aisle -- actually agree on more things than they realize.

 

I will say that if one of my loved ones was killed in a mass shooting, I would think that "right now" was actually the perfect time to begin talking about what could be done to prevent it from happening to anyone else.  I wouldn't want to put it off even one day.

Edited by J-rap
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrying a firearm is a different type of protection from those things you list, though. My seatbelt is not going to suddenly strangle me because the car anticipated an accident or misread another driverĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s intentions. A gun is different because by the time one knows without a doubt that a perpetrator is committed to using deadly force, one or more people are already harmed or killed. So, the only way to use a gun to stop a perpetrator using a deadly weapon his or herself is to be alert and vigilant to the possibility that use of oneĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s own gun may arise at any time.

 

Look, I was reading some articles one time about Ă¢â‚¬Å“Home invasion.Ă¢â‚¬ Living where I do and being a not very large or powerful woman, the article was making me start to believe that my only option for confident safety would be to wear my firearm at all times and lock and alarm my house at all times. Well, IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m not going to live that way. I have some vulnerability. ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not awesome, but itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s just a reality of life.

 

A friend said, when the bicyclists were run down in NYC (last week? Whenever it was.), Ă¢â‚¬Å“If those bicyclists had been *Armed*...Ă¢â‚¬ But seriously? Are ten armed bicyclists going to turn around, notice they are being attacked with a truck, pull a gun, shoot the terrorist, and be home in time for dinner? (Not to mention in that case, the perp apparently intended to die, so the threat of being shot was no deterrent.) We (society) need to give up the B.S. notion that an armed non-criminal public somehow deters gun violence. It doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t.

 

I feel like we're not talking the same language.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there has to be a better way, and enforcing current laws would be a logical place to start. I took one of the courses required to obtain a conceal carry permit, and was surprised at the almost complete lack of hands on firearm instruction. I think you should have to prove your ability to safely handle a firearm before you can carry it around with you in public.

 

I would want to be careful not to burden those who hunt as a way to provide for their families. While I would not be opposed to making it more difficult to stockpile ammo, I wouldnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to add undue financial stress to those who hunt via an ammo permit.

 

 

We were impressed with the gun permit course here. But it varies so much by state. A better job of what should be covered would be good in other states.

 

There is stockpile for hunting and to have plenty on hand. And then there is psycho stockpiling for Armageddon.

There could be a very liberal per season ammo limit that could easily accommodate hunting for main food source and still not be an Armageddon quantity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we're not talking the same language.

 

Ok. Sorry.

 

This thread is moving too fast and maybe what I said did not apply to your post properly. But I thought you were saying carrying a firearm was in no way more vigilent than being trained in martial arts, in the event some call upon defense were necessary, or wearing a seatbelt, should one get into a car accident. IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m saying concealed firearms are far different from being a trained martial artist or wearing a seatbelt. Shooting a gun at someone is far more active and potentiall destructive than being able to disband someone who tries to grab your arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Arctic Mama is a conservative Christian who believes the Bible, and interprets the different books/passages according to the literary genre. Some of the Bible is literal and should be read that way. The Bible speaks of the end times (which weĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been in since JesusĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ time, so please donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t think IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m using the term like the world is ending tomorrow) and tells us that things will get progressively darker with regard to the behaviors of man as we abandon God and His truth/ways more and more. I understood ArcticĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s pp to be indicating a lack of surprise that things like mass shootings are occurring more frequently, but NOT as her having a lack of care and concern about it. Christians shouldnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t sit idly by and do nothing about evil in the world. I donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe that Arctic Mama would condone that at all. (She can correct me if I am wrong.)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change is not going to happen overnight.  That's not how it works.

 

I think the conversation is a good one to have and is ongoing.  I also think it's futile to argue that both sides aren't politicizing the current situation.

 

I know nobody who is against rational gun laws.  The question is what is rational, and that requires having a conversation that is not heated by extreme emotion.  So it would be good to do this after the immediate shock passes.  Can it happen?  I guess we'll see.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...