Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[hornblower]

 And every single one of us has a different opinion of those things.  THAT is why not much gets done.  Because our opinions are all so different. 

 

 

but public opinion generally in the US is in favour of increased background checks, bans for felons and people with serious mental health problems, and bans for people on federal watchlists.  The polls I've seen represent people of all political affiliations. 

 

I think the vast majority of people want change. The problem is your politicians are taking huge amounts of money from the NRA and there's this tiny but hugely vocal group who won't even take the smallest change or limit - all so that they can continue pushing a product which is making them richer and letting them buy even more politicians.  

 

And as far as the difficulty with people not agreeing on details, that's what administrations and politicians do. That's their job, to hammer out agreements and arrive at consensus. This isn't different than talking about any other issue. I expect my elected leaders to do these difficult tasks. That's what they're there for. If it was all easy and we all agreed on everything, we wouldn't really need a government at all. 

 

 

[Cindy in FL.]

Maybe if you allow someone to live in your home you have to be willing to live under whatever restrictions they have regarding firearms. If they are not allowed to have access to a gun, then any guns have to be secured in such a way as to deny them access.

 

I don't disagree. But how do we restrict HIS access (his meaning Lanza AND others like him) without serious imposition on those who live with people like him. Especially considering these people already have serious stress dealing with people like that.

 

Again....I don't have the answers, just musing on the details....because they are so much at issue in these things.

[Ausmumof3]

Something else on my mind....

 

My sister is big into firearms as a hobby. She owns....multiple, don't know how many. She was a chariwoman on a "fashion and firearms" committee that put on some sort of convention or show. In the summer, my mom bought tickets for Her, my DD21 and I to all travel to Denver for my other sister's babyshower. My sister here brought her gun for a 4 day trip (because she was staying with our youngest sister up in the mountains where bear and mountain lion are regularly spotted.)

 

Her DH has a DV misimeanor on his record. He and his ex used to FREAK on each other. He was 17 when his ex got pg with his son, and 18 when they got married....and 20 when they divorced. He has NEVER EVER had a DV issue with my sister. Not once. They have been married about 12 yrs now, together about 15. He had a drug arrest or 2 when he was young also, never touched a drug since.

 

Should my sister be restricted from owning firearms because she lives in the same house as him?

 

 

I am not asking in argument, I am asking because these are the very details that come up when we talk about the laws we want to enact.

 

I said in another thread....the devil is in the details.

I think here the ban is like five years.

[Ausmumof3]

I don't disagree. But how do we restrict HIS access (his meaning Lanza AND others like him) without serious imposition on those who live with people like him. Especially considering these people already have serious stress dealing with people like that.

 

Again....I don't have the answers, just musing on the details....because they are so much at issue in these things.

Gun safe with a pin code to entry.

[poppy]

I agree in theory, but the issue is a) undue hardship, and there have been cases on the circuit courts and up to the Supreme Court on this already, and b) do the laws actually impede the acts we are seeking to stop? Most of those proposed don’t. Enforcing more strictly what is already on the books would be a great place to start, and perhaps raising the federal floor on firearms laws, rather than having it be almost entirely state by state. But again, constitutional issues abound with that.

 

And I just don’t see convincing evidence it will change what we are seeing. I can’t convince myself anything short of a full ban and manual, door to door confiscation under threat of imprisonment would really make a difference at this point. Not with trade, commerce, 3-d printing, and man’s nearly limitless capacity for premeditated evil against his fellow man.

 

My point on murder was that if the very act of premeditatedly killing another carries the stiffest penalties or society can levy, and most people are obeying the law already, where would any change be that would impact those already bent on breaking the highest and most basic laws of any civilized society? How much harder can you make it on all of us not breaking the law, and why would we think that would change anything? Access is some of the issue with gun violence, but not on a mass scale. Suicide and DV? Yeah, access changes might help and I’d support some, but not all proposed.

 

Trying to stop his sort of event is very difficult without abridging multiple constitutional rights.

 

You are being manipulated into believing a false dichotomy.

The only way to prevent all vehicle deaths is to ban vehicles.  We mandated seat belt laws and saved tens of thousands of lives. Imagine if the seat belt makers were stopped by people saying "there's no point, people are going to die no matter what, the only solution is to ban all cars, and that's not going to happen, so this argument is pointless!" Absolutely absurd.  

 

[poppy]

I can't work myself up to feeling incredibly amounts of sympathy for people who like guns as a hobby who live with dangerous individuals.   a / k  / a Adam Lanza's mom.   Her right to a hobby was not important compared to the loss it resulted in.

[ktgrok]

The bold: Totally. What a mind-fuck for a kid. Here's to the generations to come that think this is normal - Cheers!

 

Side-note: I would never in a million, trillion, bazillion years attend a church with armed guards, patrols, or CC attenders that I was aware of.  I'll pray, worship, and fellowship elsewhere, thankyouverymuch.

 

Well, my large Catholic parish has an on duty (at least, he's in uniform so I assume on duty?) police officer at the main doors, standing guard during our services. 

 

It's not a sketchy area or anything, but he's there. 

 

When someone fainted during the service he provided first aid and called in the paramedics. 

[poppy]

No, I’m really not being manipulated to believe anything on this subject - don’t insult my intelligence or discernment baselessly. I’d say the seatbelt equivalent on firearms is basic permitting and safety courses. I’m not opposed to those being implemented. It won’t stop mass shootings the same way seatbelts won’t prevent all auto deaths. As I said above, in the post you quoted, I think some changes could be made to improve suicides and some access issues, but it’s a drop in the bucket in this country and no impediment to this guy, Vegas guy, sandy hook guy, etc etc.

Why are you acting like this is some inexplicable unsolvable mystery? Two white guys with DV issues just bought guns , easily , at legal gun vendors , then killed a lot of people . Make. It. Harder. You bringing up people going from house to house confiscating guns is hysteria - or perhaps just intended to invoke hysteria . And you say I’m insulting your intelligence?

[Carol in Cal.]

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?

 

I did not say 'now is not the time'.  What I said was, 'here is not the place.  Here, we are mourning.  Politics, attacks, and dissension should be elsewhere.'

[Caroline]

No, I said that’s the way to actually reduce the gun count in this country to the point of stopping things like this, where it isn’t a crime of opportunity but premeditated.

 

Feel better yet? Have we talked this out sufficiently? Or do we have to do this longer?

 

I’m baiting myself at this point, there is literally nothing left to say on this topic I haven’t already said :lol:

You mean you don’t have anything more to say on the subject. There is plenty left to say that you haven’t already said.

[Liz CA]

This is not a snarky post. As a more liberal Christian, I am baffled by militant Christian dominionism, baffled by rejection from other believers, and baffled by the notion that the past was holier than now. For people who had fewer rights during America's golden years, or who were slaves or outcasts, today probably seems better. I would like to know what you think.

 

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

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

[Halftime Hope]

In a country that continues to produce and sell weapons at a dizzying rate, of course they will. There are more guns than people in this country. We own greater than 50% of the weapons in the entire world. Of course it's easy for a criminal to get his hands on a weapon. That is precisely the point.

 

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

 

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

[Ausmumof3]

....

Edited November 7, 2017 by Ausmumof3

[Barb_]

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

 

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

No, I did not. The AR-15 and Sig Sauer MCX are weapons of war designed to kill many people as efficiently as possible and are not coincidentally the weapons of choice among mass shooters in the past 20 years or so. Outlaw them and order buybacks and we will at the very least reduce the deadliness of mass shootings.

 

Criminals can easily get their hands on weapons because our laws lack teeth, our enforcement is laughable and there are too many guns in circulation.

[Ausmumof3]

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

 

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

This may be true for connected criminals that are part of organised crime but not so much for opportunistic criminals.

[Barb_]

This may be true for connected criminals that are part of organised crime but not so much for opportunistic criminals.

Not that smart. Not that wealthy. I said it earlier, but I will repeat. Mass shootings are a crime of opportunity as well as passion.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

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

 

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

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Ausmumof3]

...

Edited November 7, 2017 by Ausmumof3

[poppy]

No, I said that’s the way to actually reduce the gun count in this country to the point of stopping things like this, where it isn’t a crime of opportunity but premeditated.

 

Feel better yet? Have we talked this out sufficiently? Or do we have to do this longer?

 

I’m baiting myself at this point, there is literally nothing left to say on this topic I haven’t already said.

 

Edited for sensitivity.

 

You've said it's hopeless, over and over and over.  Clearly you think it is.  So hey -let those of us who disagree  try to improve things. If we're wrong, nothing changes. If we're right, lives are saved.  Seems really worth a shot.     

 

[Liz CA]

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

 

And we will likely always have a form of those - carried out or attempted.

I am speaking more from an individual standpoint and dealing with the stuff life throws at all of us occasionally.

 

[Word Nerd]

He bought the gun at a gun store with no issue. The law didn't work at all. It is completely inadequate. Plus, the 'regular citizen' didn't shoot him.

 

Check your sources. They are lying to you.

Like the BBC?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41895695

[8circles]

How about we remove all unnecessary guns from citizens and then,

 

1) send thoughts and prayers to any consequences from that and

 

2) throw up our hands at any problems people experience from not being able to have a gun just because they want one?

 

I like that plan.

[Halftime Hope]

No, I did not. The AR-15 and Sig Sauer MCX are weapons of war designed to kill many people as efficiently as possible and are not coincidentally the weapons of choice among mass shooters in the past 20 years or so. Outlaw them and order buybacks and we will at the very least reduce the deadliness of mass shootings.

 

Criminals can easily get their hands on weapons because our laws lack teeth, our enforcement is laughable and there are too many guns in circulation.

 

Random thoughts: 

 

1) One more time, criminals will find a way obtain weapons if they want them, regardless of what is going on in society at large. 

 

2) Every responsible gun owner and LEO I know would *really* like to see solid enforcement of the gun laws already on the books.  Don't put something (laws or regulations) in place, ignore implementing it or do it haphazardly, and then after a catastrophic failure, tell me more is needed!  What will happen then, more non-enforcement? How will that help?

 

3) At the risk of sounding unsympathetic to the victims, as a society we have to get serious about reporting criminal threats and behavior which indicate that someone is a ticking time bomb.  (I have a shirt-tail relative-in-law who will be in the headlines at some point, I fear.  Those able to do so would not press charges when they should have. We have nothing to do with those relatives now because it is unsafe to be in their lives.)  I know law enforcement and courts can be woefully incompetent at times, but couldja at least try?!?!?!

 

4) We thought about our responsibility as parents when my kids were tiny, and as part of our planning for their future if anything should happen to us, we took legal measures that ensured that my children would never inherit or otherwise receive firearms from us unless they were adults who were healthy, responsible, and of a temperament that would lend itself to such. 

 

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

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

Also beating one's wife was a private affair that law enforcement didn't consider was their problem. Same with smacking your children around. Ah, the good old days. Why can't people behave like they used to?

[TechWife]

Here's an idea - not original to me, but I haven't seen it discussed recently. It's a complete package, so to speak, as the pieces are interdependent. 

 

Gun license - Require people to obtain gun licenses. In order to obtain one, the person needs to demonstrate knowledge of laws regarding gun use, safety, personal injury and consequences for the misuse of the weapon (possible criminal charges & civil proceedings) as well as pass a background check.  Then, after they do that, they can take classes that allow them to develop their skill, using a school/range/instructor owned weapon to meet a minimum standard, then they are granted a provisional license. After a designated period of time with no citations or criminal charges, the person can pass another background check and graduate to a full license that has to be renewed periodically, say, every five years. There would be different classes of licenses to cover what types of guns the person is being licensed to use.  At the time of renewal, their records would be checked to make sure they are still legally eligible to fire a weapon. Licenses can be revoked for health reasons or for illegal use of a weapon (more on this below). 

 

Gun ownership - All guns would be required to be registered to a specific owner. Owners must provide a license in order to register their gun. This does not mean that other people could not use the gun (for example, a spouse or whoever was included at the time), but it would mean that the owner is accepting responsibility for the weapon. The owner is penalized if they allow someone who does not have a license to use the gun (obviously they would have to get caught) and the person using the gun without a license is penalized.  Registrations have to be renewed periodically, say, once a year. At that time, the owner must prove they are 1) still in possession of the weapon by presenting it for  inspection and 2) they have not been charged with any offenses that would prevent them from gun ownership 3) They are carrying insurance on the weapon and allowed users and 4) they have to pass a background check. If you sell a gun, you are responsible for going to the registration facility with the buyer to transfer the registration. In the case of inheritance, the executor of the estate and the person inheriting the gun go together to transfer the registration. At any time, an owner can surrender a weapon at the place of registration as well (say, if you inherited a gun but don't want it). If a person tries to renew the registration on a weapon that they no longer qualify to own (say they fail a background check or they don't have insurance), the gun can be confiscated at that time. If an owner fails to renew the registration and does not provide documentation for the legal disposal of the weapon, the weapons can be confiscated (after obtaining a warrant) and held until the owner completes the renewal process. If the renewal isn't completed on time and the owner fails to respond to warning notices, ownership of the weapon transfers to the state and the state can destroy it or sell it as surplus. Owners who do not renew their registrations and do not either surrender their weapons voluntarily, prove they have been destroyed or have them on their property when they are confiscated will face criminal charges for illegal disposition of a firearm. 

 

Insurance - Gun owners would have to carry insurance on their weapons. They would have to list on their policy the registered weapons that they own as well as the members of their household who have current gun licenses and would be charged accordingly. This insurance would cover 1) theft 2) injury to a person listed on the policy by a listed weapon 3) injury to a person not listed on the policy by a person listed on the policy using a gun on the policy 4) death of any person listed on the policy caused by any person on the policy using a weapon listed on the policy 5) death of a person not listed on the policy caused by a person on the policy using a weapon listed on the policy. There could be different levels of coverage ($ amount limits for injury, for example). The insurance companies could adjust their rates depending on any violations of law by any licensed person on the policy. They could charge different amounts for different guns based upon the value of the weapon and the type of the weapon. Maybe we could at some point have safety records for various weapons that could be taken into consideration as well. Discounts could be provided for people who pass additional proficiency tests, prove they have gun safes, different types of gun safes could affect the insurance cost in different ways. Insurance companies could refuse to insure without a gun safe or charge exorbitant rates. 

 

Use of weapon not owned by user - People could rent guns to use from a gun range or perhaps a hunting club. They would be required to prove that they are licensed and that they have insurance. If they do not have insurance, they can purchase it through the facility or organization where they are renting the weapon. These facilities or organizations would be able to purchase insurance that covers them in case of the theft of the weapon, misuse of the weapon, etc. 

 

Ammunition - Must have a valid license to purchase. Tracked by lot numbers from manufacturer, to retailer to buyer. Ammo stamped with lot numbers. 

 

Policing - A big issue is enforcing these regulations. Requiring weapon registration and renewal as well as licensing and renewal will be beneficial. Citations can be issued by police for failing to follow the regulations (of course they have to get caught - that's a no brainer) - we are going to assume they will get caught. Penalties for failing to register a weapon or having one without having a license would be very stiff. Penalties for allowing an unlicensed person to use your weapon would be stiff. Penalties for illegal sales and failure to register ownership transfers would involve fines and jail time. Use of one of your weapons in the commission of a crime would involve fines and jail time. Violations would also cause their insurance cost to rise. People who use their weapons and harm another person would face stiff penalties, even if it is accidental. Any of these occurrences could accrue points on your gun license and if you accrue enough points, your licensed can be revoked until you can prove that you have taken additional courses on safety, law and prove they can meet the minimum proficiency standard. At the time your license is revoked, you would be required to surrender your weapons if there are not other licensed users in the residence.  If the weapons are not surrendered, the state/police/whoever can obtain a warrant to  confiscate them and hold them until the person prequalifies for a license. After a certain period of time, say three years, if the person hasn't re-qualified, then ownership automatically transfers to the state and the state can destroy the weapon or sell it at a surplus sale. 

 

How would all of this help? It would put the onus on the gun owners to secure their weapons and behave responsibly. It would hold people accountable for selling their weapons to other licensed users. It would provide opportunities for there to be regular background checks off all gun owners so that we can attempt to make sure all people who have a gun are eligible to have one. It would decrease the number of weapons that are available to the criminal community. A combination of criminal charges and financial consequences holds people to a standard of behavior. This would be phased in over a relatively short period of time - say give a year for appropriate software and processes to be developed (yes, that's long enough, it's not difficult information to track), then phase in requirements for licensing and registration over, say, five years. States would be required to share information with each other. New purchases would be registered, it would be the responsibility of the gun owners to register weapons they already own. Proof of ownership might be a sticking point, but it isn't impossible to overcome, it will just take some thought and planning. 

 

How do we pay for it? License and registration fees as well as court fines go towards cost of these procedures as well as additional court costs and policing required to obtain warrants, execute them, secure confiscated weapons, etc. Any money made from selling weapons at surplus would go straight back into the gun management program. These fees could also go towards some type of program to decrease the licensing costs for low income citizens. 

 

Before anyone says this will not work - let me just say this. Other than some of the confiscation provisions, this is exactly what happens with cars. I have to have a license and insurance to buy one. The vehicle must be registered and I have to renew that registration on an annual basis.  When I renew that registration I have to affirm that I still own the vehicle, that I carry insurance on it and it has to pass an emissions inspection.  I have to prove my knowledge of the law and meet minimum proficiency requirements to get a drivers license. I have to renew my drivers license periodically. Legally I am required to carry liability insurance. I am required to insure every vehicle I own. I am not allowed to keep unregistered vehicles on my property (I  live within city limits). Unlicensed drivers are not allowed to pump gasoline (at least that's the law in my state). I am required by my insurance company to list every licensed driver that lives in my home, whether or not I allow them to drive any of the cars. The driving records of the licensed drivers directly impact the cost of the insurance. If I sell my car, I have to complete the paperwork to transfer the title and registration. I am an idiot if I sell a car to an unlicensed, uninsured driver because the civil penalties I could face in the case of an accident could be astronomical. If I junk a vehicle, I have to document that and if requested, provide that documentation when i receive the registration renewal for it. If I commit a crime in my car or obtain my car by committing a crime (for example,  buying it with money obtained illegally), the state will confiscate it and it will be destroyed or sold at surplus or auction. If I drive a car without a license, I might not get caught, but if I do, I'm going to get arrested and the car is going to get towed.  It will also impact whether or not I can get a license in the future and it will cause any auto insurance I carry to be more expensive. If I am not at home and don't have my car, I can rent one. I have to prove I have a license and insurance or buy insurance from the rental company. If I choose not to own a car, I can still rent one as long as I have a license to operate it and I can buy insurance from the rental company. If I misuse my vehicle, say speed or cause an accident, don't maintain my lane while driving, I can get a citation and be required to appear in court, pay fines and court costs. Then, my license will have points and if I do these stupid things too often, I could loose my license. Without a license, I cannot purchase a car, gasoline or rent a car legally. If I can do none of these things, then it greatly decreases the likelihood that I will cause an accident, thus  damaging the property of another person or injuring them. 

 

As far as tracking ammunition by lot number - manufacturers and pharmacies do this with millions of pills every single day. There are proven procedures in place and software that assists with this tracking that could be adapted to the gun industry in tracking ammunition. This is very doable. 

 

To those of you who worry about some type of mass government seizure of weapons: If you think that the government is going to seize weapons and only go to the homes of those who have registered weapons, you aren't being rational. If things go downhill that much, they will be going door to door and searching every single house, looking for weapons and ammunition. 

 

To those of you who think that gun regulation is a violation of the second amendment, I'd like to draw your attention to the part of the amendment that states "well regulated." It is given equal weight with the right to bear arms. This equal weight is not only evident in the verbiage of the amendment, it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by TechWife

[MercyA]

He bought the gun at a gun store with no issue.   The law didn't work at all.  It is completely inadequate.  Plus, the 'regular citizen' didn't shoot him.

 

Check your sources. They are lying to you.

 

I'm pretty sure he did:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

[TechWife]

 

2) Every responsible gun owner and LEO I know would *really* like to see solid enforcement of the gun laws already on the books.  Don't put something (laws or regulations) in place, ignore implementing it or do it haphazardly, and then after a catastrophic failure, tell me more is needed!  What will happen then, more non-enforcement? How will that help?

 

 

How about enforcing the laws on the books now (why aren't the LEO's you know doing that?) and adding more laws that would more closely monitor gun use and misuse? It doesn't have to be an either/or solution, it can be a both/and solution. 

[TechWife]

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.

 

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

 

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

[SKL]

I started to post in regards to your post.

 

I agree with most of what you said, in some way or another.  But I wonder how the details work out.

 

Like you talked about background checks for sales of firearms.  Not opposed to this, but how does it work in terms of inheritance? 

 

Also, gun permits and others in the house.  There's a gun in our home.  I have never even TOUCHED it.  Let alone fired it.  It belongs to DH (see question regarding inheritance.)  Adam Lanza never bought the guns he used.  They belonged to his mother.  So does that mean that I, as someone who lives in the same house as the person who owns the gun, need to ALSO go through safety training/assessment?  We don't require the same for driving cars, so............I dunno. 

 

Think of how they do it with convicted child molesters.  The criminal is not allowed around kids.  That means the people sharing a house with him can't be kids and can't have kids over.  And if you knowingly let a child molester around your kids, you risk having your kids taken away.  Similar concepts can apply to guns and people restricted from access to guns.

 

So what can you do if you're a nice gun owner with a bad housemate?  You can move out, he can move out, or you can store your guns offsite in a place where he can't access them.  After all, why would you want your guns within reach of someone like that?  There should be a criminal penalty for people who knowingly allow that.  I mean, if you leave your guns around children and they discharge them, you get in trouble, because you should have known the gun wasn't safe in their hands.  Same concept.

[Liz CA]

Also beating one's wife was a private affair that law enforcement didn't consider was their problem. Same with smacking your children around. Ah, the good old days. Why can't people behave like they used to?

 

But see, Kathy I don't think it is all about the good ole days. Have you ever experienced hardship, loss, conflict in your family or with friends, financial instability or reversals, poor health or any other negative event that somehow impacted your emotional well-being?

 

If you answer "no" the above, skip the rest.

 

If you answer "yes" to any of the above, why, would you say you did not run out and shoot a few people?

Did you not have access to a gun? Would you have done it if you had access to a gun?

If you have access to a gun and did not run out and shoot people, then there is obviously a difference in the way Kathy deals with life events versus someone who chooses the path Kelley did. And this loops back to my pondering why more and more people seem to go this route versus any other coping strategy. I know mental health issues, accessibility of care, etc but I feel there is still a missing piece somewhere.

 

Again: This is just me looking at it from a behavioral / psychological view rather than gun law. I have already "officially" endorsed most of Murphy's suggestions.

[Halftime Hope]

In response to TechWife:

 

The local LEO's I know have no jurisdiction.  They are wishing that the BATF and other agencies would do their jobs and enforce laws that are on the books.  I haven't talked with any of them since this shooting, but I'm thinking, based on previous instances, that like me, they are probably thinking "What the heck?!!?!" about the AF not properly notifying.  Had it done so, he wouldn't have been able to get a gun.  The law would have been followed.  Per government sources speaking in his home state, he *was* denied a CC license.  So far, it looks like spokespeople haven't specified why it was denied, but TX is a "shall issue" state, so something turned up.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[MercyA]

I've heard that a lot (my background is fundamentalist Christian), but it only makes me wonder what Jesus is waiting for, if the many and varied eras of genocide - I mean hundreds to millions of people at a time - were not dark enough that it couldn't get worse...and we are supposedly turning darker...than Hitler? And the rest?

 

I am out of fundamentalist friends to ask, because those former acquaintances have condemned me to hell for being too liberal. So maybe you or someone else could tell me how we are to be considered a more wicked generation than that of the Spanish conquistadors, for example...or why the only condemnation and hatred I've experienced lately has been from conservative Christians. I think their love has run cold...

 

This is not a snarky post. As a more liberal Christian, I am baffled by militant Christian dominionism, baffled by rejection from other believers, and baffled by the notion that the past was holier than now. For people who had fewer rights during America's golden years, or who were slaves or outcasts, today probably seems better. I would like to know what you think.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

My two cents. 

 

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

 

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

Edited November 7, 2017 by MercyA

[TechWife]

In response to TechWife:

 

The local LEO's I know have no jurisdiction.  They are wishing that the BATF and other agencies would do their jobs and enforce laws that are on the books.  I haven't talked with any of them since this shooting, but I'm thinking, based on previous instances, that like me, they are probably thinking "What the heck?!!?!" about the AF not properly notifying.  Had it done so, he wouldn't have been able to get a gun.  The law would have been followed.  Per government sources speaking in his home state, he *was* denied a CC license.  So far, it looks like spokespeople haven't specified why it was denied, but TX is a "shall issue" state, so something turned up.  

 

It sounds as if laws and/or procedures should be changed to allow LEO"s to enforce these laws, then. Everyone I know is thinking that same thing about the USAF at this point. I truly hope stiff penalties are handed down.  But, as I said, this doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both/and. 

[SKL]

 

 

 

As a side note, I don't understand how fracturing a child's skull, while also assaulting the child's mother, only counted as a misdemeanor and only warranted a bad conduct discharge instead of a dishonorable one.  

 

Yeah, and only got him a year behind bars (though his severe abuse of the child was admittedly intentional).

 

Whatever his discharge was for, he should have been restricted from owning guns because of multiple violent crime convictions.

 

From what I have heard, the law should have prevented him if the military had filed the report of his crime as they were supposed to.

 

While most people would never commit mass murder, it is pretty obvious that a person capable of assaulting weaker people once is at risk to do it again.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

My two cents. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[Halftime Hope]

deleted the redundant quote...sorry, it was an oops in my post.

Also, regarding churches, to plan or not to plan for security...

 

I think of it this way:  in my parents' generation, when a parent dropped off a child, that was it.  One or another parent showed up to pick up the child, but no phone number was written down, no pager went with the parents into the service, no form was filled out to specify who was legally allowed to pick up the child. 

 

When I had children, churches were catching on to the need to institute policies to protect children from non-custodial parents intending to capitalize on the good will and lack of knowledge of the church staff. I didn't know it, since it wasn't my reality, but ill-intentioned perps had figured out that church Sunday Schools and nurseries were an easy mark for access to children.

 

Today, most churches require at a minimum a cell phone number to reach the parent AND the names of who is allowed to retrieve the child.  In my former little low-tech church when my kids were teens, parents dropping off a small child were given a numbered nametag for the child which had to be returned before or as the child was handed over to the parent.  The nursery worker would match the number to the number pinned to the back of the child's shirt.  In my current church, when you check in, the computer prints out two stickers, one with the child's name and the date, and one with the parent's name who will be picking up the child (as entered on that day by the parent dropping the child off), also with the date on it.  Again, nursery workers verify that the two stickers match.

 

All of this has evolved as society and its needs have changed. 

 

Planning for security at a church is the same in my thinking.  I attend a large regional church which has a safety team; their purview is broader than just security and includes medical, thus the name.  We have off-duty LEOs present to provide security during times that groups are on campus, and the doors are locked except when a group is expected.  People are buzzed into the office after identifying themselves to the receptionist, and the front office is protected by bullet-proof glass.  Why?  Because there are literally hundreds of violent force incidents of one form or another that take place at churches every year. It is part of a newish reality, much more common than in previous generations.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

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

 

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

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

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

[mathnerd]

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

There was a baby who was killed and a mother who was pregnant was killed as well. I feel the same way as you.

[poppy]

I feel the need to clarify again I’m not afraid of door to door seizures, but was explaining that would be the only way to actually reduce the firearms population in a significant enough way to make a dent at this point in commercial and technological history. No tinfoil hats here, it got quoted and misunderstood.

 

I totally shouldn’t be awake but the baby is doing scary seizure-ish things, and it’s making it hard to fall asleep again after the 3 am feed.

 

And yet the mass shooters recently have all gone out and purchased their guns from a gun shop. The problem is gun sales right now and the guns in circulation! 

You are skipping problem 1 entirely with your logic in saying that it won't make a dent.  Gun sales recently resulted in several mass murders. Dent wasn't made because existing laws are inadequate. Let's make it harder.

[Guest]

I wish all of the proposals Tech Wife detailed would happen. To me, it is infinitely logical.

[MercyA]

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

 

I think I said God allows natural consequences to play out as a form of judgment. I don't see why that is shocking to anyone. He gave us free will. Of course there will be consequences. 

 

I am infinitely more chilled by the people of this country taking so many innocent lives themselves, through many means, and doing so legally. Killing is positively glorified here, and I think that's part of the problem.

 

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

 

I'm not denying there is something different going on here, or that we shouldn't take steps to try to stop it.

 

I'm also not arguing that God is some sort of automaton--input in x number of sins and get x number of judgments spit out. Based on my understanding of Scripture, it doesn't work like that. 

 

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

 

Um, no. It does bother me, but not in the way you describe. Maybe that's true for some. IDK.

Edited November 7, 2017 by MercyA

[poppy]

You'd have thought that the judgement would have been much harsher in the past in the US, with genocide (Native Americans) and mass rape and torture (slavery).  It's not worse now. For goodness sake.

 

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

 

Or city borders (see: Chicago).   This is why national change, not local, is necessary.

[MercyA]

You'd have thought that the judgement would have been much harsher in the past in the US, with genocide (Native Americans) and mass rape and torture (slavery).  It's not worse now. For goodness sake.

 

I didn't say it was:

 

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

[8circles]

I think I said God allows natural consequences to play out as a form of judgment. I don't see why that is shocking to anyone. He gave us free will. Of course there will be consequences. 

 

I am infinitely more chilled by the people of this country taking so many innocent lives themselves, through many means, and doing so legally. Killing is positively glorified here, and I think that's part of the problem.

 

 

I'm not denying there is something different going on here, or that we shouldn't take steps to try to stop it.

 

I'm also not arguing that God is some sort of automaton--input in x number of sins and get x number of judgments spit out. Based on my understanding of Scripture, it doesn't work like that. 

 

 

Um, no. It does bother me, but not in the way you describe. Maybe that's true for some. IDK.

 

You seem to be talking about abortion (taking innocent lives themselves legally) as an example of "killing is positively glorified". That is a gross perversion of reality. Seriously, why does abortion always come into the picture when it has no relevance?

 

Someone (Poppy, I think?) already posted a really good list of actual sins against already-born people that definitely deserve judgement. Are you saying that God is allowing us to have so many killed by guns as our judgement? For abortion? For which sins is this a natural consequence except the sin of making guns our idols?

[Aura]

You seem to be talking about abortion (taking innocent lives themselves legally) as an example of "killing is positively glorified". That is a gross perversion of reality. Seriously, why does abortion always come into the picture when it has no relevance?

 

Someone (Poppy, I think?) already posted a really good list of actual sins against already-born people that definitely deserve judgement. Are you saying that God is allowing us to have so many killed by guns as our judgement? For abortion? For which sins is this a natural consequence except the sin of making guns our idols?

 

I think you are on to something here. As a nation in general, America does idolize guns. Religion aside, idolize is simply "admire, revere, or love greatly or excessively," and yeah, America does have that kind of attitude toward guns.

 

I think most religions teach a "reap what you sow" concept. It's certainly not exclusive to Christianity. Call it the Law of Return or whatever, the idea is that whatever actions, energy, thought, focus, etc. you put into something, you will get it back in greater amount.

 

Guns are meant to kill. That's their function. With so much energy being put into guns, is it any wonder that mass shootings are up? It isn't judgment, but it is consequence. The more people use, buy, sell, and deal in firearms, the more violence associated with them will rise.

 

I've been following this thread, and I'm just musing. That's all. I'm not proposing anything, and I don't know how to address the problem. I do agree that there is a problem, though. A very serious one.

 

Talking about it is good. Hopefully, some action will follow! I like TechWife's suggestions. Treat guns more like vehicles with licenses, insurance and regulation. "Well-regulated" indeed!

[MercyA]

You seem to be talking about abortion (taking innocent lives themselves legally) as an example of "killing is positively glorified". That is a gross perversion of reality. Seriously, why does abortion always come into the picture when it has no relevance?

 

Someone (Poppy, I think?) already posted a really good list of actual sins against already-born people that definitely deserve judgement. Are you saying that God is allowing us to have so many killed by guns as our judgement? For abortion? For which sins is this a natural consequence except the sin of making guns our idols?

 

I said legalized killing is accomplished through *many* means, some of which I already mentioned in this thread:

 

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

 

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

 

I was thinking mainly of the military when I said that killing is glorified. 

 

As far as abortion goes--of course nearly a million human beings being killed every year is relevant. Killing is normalized in our culture. "Already born" people aren't more worthy of life and protection by virtue of their age or stage of development. 

 

I recall the list you mentioned--I think maybe it was Tibbie who posted it? I agreed with most of her points and have spoken against those very things many times here on this board. 

 

I don't pretend to be able to read God's mind. All I can go by is Scripture, which teaches that nations--and individuals--reap the consequences of what they sow. This nation has sown violence and bloodshed, again and again. It doesn't surprise me to see more violence and bloodshed playing out. 

 

I agree with you about guns being idols. I hate the hunting-for-sport culture. I hate the glorification of war. I wouldn't be surprised if these things are contributing to the current tragic situation.

Edited November 7, 2017 by MercyA

[8circles]

I said legalized killing is accomplished through *many* means, some of which I already mentioned in this thread:

 

 

 

I was thinking mainly of the military when I said that killing is glorified. 

 

As far as abortion goes--of course nearly a million human beings being killed every year is relevant. "Already born" people aren't more worthy of life and protection by virtue of their age or stage of development.

 

I recall the list you mentioned--I think maybe it was Tibbie who posted it? I agreed with most of her points and have spoken against those very things many times here on this board. 

 

I don't pretend to be able to read God's mind. All I can go by is Scripture, which teaches that nations--and individuals--reap the consequences of what they sow. This nation has sown violence and bloodshed, again and again. It doesn't surprise me to see more violence and bloodshed playing out. 

 

I agree with you about guns being idols. I hate the hunting-for-sport culture. I hate the glorification of war. I wouldn't be surprised if these things are contributing to the current tragic situation.

 

The fact that you and others continue to bring up abortion as somehow an explanation for our gun problem is mind-boggling.

 

One poster in particular continues to talk about innocent gun owners having no blood on their hands yet apparently people are being shot because abortion.

 

It's a perversion of reality. It's a purposeful changing of the subject. And it's offensive.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I am a Christian so I'm fine with a little detour about what God may be doing or not doing, but as I originally replied when this rabbit trail was started, do we not all agree that religious fatalism must not drive policy in a pluralistic republic? That we cannot responsibly "do nothing" to effect a human change for the better for all, just because some feel duty bound to accept what they believe to be the "judgment" of their own deity?

 

Our founding fathers attempted to write and reason from an enlightenment perspective, as they were products of the age of reason AND came from a history of oppression from state religion. They couldn't throw off their own religious beliefs entirely, any more than we are able to, and they couldn't clear their biases and prejudices, either. But their attempt was to sort out a logical, reasoned, and just form of government for all...

 

which we need to remember when we are trying to decide whether WE (meaning the people or the government) should act politically based on anyone's reading of what God wants.

 

Why? Because not only do we not have a state religion (officially - watch this space), but we also have the problem of not sharing the same God, or even interpreting the same gods the same way.

 

Put bluntly, if some of the gods are letting innocents be slaughtered for the nation's sins, how do we know

 

1. which god(s)

2. what sins

3. how to repent

4. how to appease the god(s)?

 

THAT is a very primitive, pre-civilization form of self-government. It is unacceptable. We are not a theocracy, and we are not all here trying to appease the gods so our children won't die in a hail of gunfire!

 

We have a representative republic, founded on ideals of freedom, justice, and personal responsibility. We have elected officials, a chain of command, a mode of redress, and the ability to peacefully replace ineffective leaders.

 

Religion is the province of individuals and their religious organizations, and has more to do with how the individual believes and behaves. Civics belong to all the people. We have a system. We have a government that is meant to represent US. Let's hold it accountable, and let's stay rational.