Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[MercyA]

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.

 

In this thread, you seem to be definitively stating *other people's motives* as if you are privy to their thoughts. I'm not trying to change the subject. That's never been a thought in my mind. 

 

I think you might be hearing what you expect me to say, rather than what I'm actually saying. We have a culture of violence in this country. Yes, abortion is part of it. If you are offended by me saying that, so be it.

[MercyA]

Tibbie, I have never advocated for a theocracy and I have never said we should do nothing, nor have I seen anyone else do so in this discussion. 

 

I think we are capable of discussing theology and possible legal solutions in the same thread. 

[OH_Homeschooler]

I'm pretty sure he did:

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

 

 

 

From article you posted: 

 

• It was not immediately clear whether Kelley died from the self-inflicted gunshot wound or from being shot by the resident. "However, investigators found evidence at the scene that indicates the subject may have died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound," Martin said.

 

I have read other articles and saw news stories where the sheriff confirmed he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

[Word Nerd]

From article you posted: 

 

• It was not immediately clear whether Kelley died from the self-inflicted gunshot wound or from being shot by the resident. "However, investigators found evidence at the scene that indicates the subject may have died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound," Martin said.

 

I have read other articles and saw news stories where the sheriff confirmed he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

 

The PP's claim was that the citizen did not shoot him.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Tibbie, I have never advocated for a theocracy and I have never said we should do nothing, nor have I seen anyone else do so in this discussion.

 

I think we are capable of discussing theology and possible legal solutions in the same thread.

Obviously, so do I, or I would not have posted three times about religion? The difference is that I don't think the two topics are the same conversation. Theology is 'what do you believe about these times,' possible legal solutions are 'what does our nation do about these times,' and the former should have nothing to do with the latter, or else someone is advocating for theocracy!

[Cindy in FL.]

But don’t you think our beliefs inform our thoughts on right and wrong and what laws should be in place to some extent?

 

Obviously, so do I, or I would not have posted three times about religion? The difference is that I don't think the two topics are the same conversation. Theology is 'what do you believe about these times,' possible legal solutions are 'what does our nation do about these times,' and the former should have nothing to do with the latter, or else someone is advocating for theocracy!

[OH_Homeschooler]

The PP's claim was that the citizen did not shoot him.

Yes, I know. Poppy wrote that the "regular citizen" didn't shoot him, then Mercy posted that article to "prove" that he did, when in fact that article backs up what Poppy had written. It was most likely a self-inflicted gunshot wound that brought the shooter down.

[Butter]

I'm pretty sure he did:

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

 

It was known he exchanged gunfire with a private citizen.  It was not known if one of those shots killed him or even if he had been hit.  Today they know that he died of a self-inflicted gunshot to the head and he had two non-fatal shots from the private citizen.  He was not *stopped* by the "good guy with a gun."  In fact, he fled after exchanging gunfire with the private citizen.

[8circles]

In this thread, you seem to be definitively stating *other people's motives* as if you are privy to their thoughts. I'm not trying to change the subject. That's never been a thought in my mind. 

 

I think you might be hearing what you expect me to say, rather than what I'm actually saying. We have a culture of violence in this country. Yes, abortion is part of it. If you are offended by me saying that, so be it.

 

And you used abortion as PART OF Killing being glorified in this country.

 

I am reading exactly what you are writing. Your words.

 

Yes, we have a culture of violence in this country. If you are *in any way* saying that people die from guns because abortion, you are perverting reality. And it's offensive because it is not true and it shifts responsibility from the people who contribute to this culture onto those of us who are sitting ducks.

 

If you aren't saying that people are dying from guns because abortion, then stop bringing up abortion in a thread about gun violence.

[TechWife]

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.

 

Reduction in firearms would come over time with improved regulations that require accountability for those who own and sell guns. No one is talking about going door to door to randomly confiscate firearms. Why? Because the fourth amendment protects your rights against that.  Like I said, if that were to happen, there would be a whole lot more going on in the country to worry about. Various people (here and elsewhere) have brought up gun buyback programs, but no one has called for door to door seizures. 

[Seasider]

Scrolling through this thread, a song keeps coming to mind...

 

 

Do you hear the people sing?

Singing a song of angry men?

It is the music of a people

Who will not be slaves again!

When the beating of your heart

Echoes the beating of the drums

There is a life about to start

When tomorrow comes!

 

Will you join in our crusade?

Who will be strong and stand with me?

Beyond the barricade

Is there a world you long to see?

 

Then join in the fight

That will give you the right to be free!

 

 

 

I think we are all mourning. And we are all angry. This thread is "the song of angry men." We all long for an end to such senseless horrors. Some of us will pray for that change, some will actively work for that change, and some will do both. And many are willing to make sacrifices to bring about that change.

 

Tears here. And prayers, prayers, prayers. And anger, yet resolve to look for effective ways to channel that anger.

[8circles]

I'm so over the blame shifting. Gun violence is the consequence of gun culture. Full stop.

 

If you are interested in being part of the solution, here are some organizations you might want to work with. Please share other resources.

 

Everytown for Gun Safety

https://everytown.org/

 

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America

https://momsdemandaction.org/

 

Gun Owners for Responsible Ownership

http://www.responsibleownership.org/

[Cindy in FL.]

Within this thread are the outcries of people angry over the loss of innocent lives. I think that is why abortion was brought into the discussion by MercyA and others. For those of us who believe that life begins at conception, there is no more innocent a life than that of a baby in its mother’s womb. So, I think for Mercy it was natural to bring it up. If we want to cry out for the protection of life, it should apply to all life. Just my 2 cents on where Mercy was coming from with regard to abortion. (I am not speaking to the judgement of God issue at all.)

 

As far as those gunned down on Sunday and in all the other shootings in the US and around the world, of course they didn’t deserve to die that way. There is an obvious problem in our country with the access to weapons that should never be available to our citizenry. Something has to be done about it. I’m fine with waiting periods, background checks, gun safety classes, etc. to strike a needed balance between the right to bear arms and preventing the loss of innocent lives.

 

ETA: MercyA corrected me on the reason for bringing abortion up. She was answering a question about whether or how we are worse than previous generations (Hitler, genocide, slavery, etc.)

Edited November 7, 2017 by Cindy in FL.

[OH_Homeschooler]

Within this thread are the outcries of people angry over the loss of innocent lives. I think that is why abortion was brought into the discussion by MercyA and others. For those of us who believe that life begins at conception, there is no more innocent a life than that of a baby in its mother’s womb. So, I think for Mercy it was natural to bring it up. If we want to cry out for the protection of life, it should apply to all life. Just my 2 cents on where Mercy was coming from with regard to abortion. (I am not speaking to the judgement of God issue at all.)

 

As far as those gunned down on Sunday and in all the other shootings in the US and around the world, of course they didn’t deserve to die that way. There is an obvious problem in our country with the access to weapons that should never be available to our citizenry. Something has to be done about it. I’m fine with waiting periods, background checks, gun safety classes, etc. to strike a needed balance between the right to bear arms and preventing the loss of innocent lives.

 

Legislators have no problem bringing up new ways to restrict abortion rights. Why don't they do the same for guns? 

[Cindy in FL.]

They should.

 

Legislators have no problem bringing up new ways to restrict abortion rights. Why don't they do the same for guns?

[Bluegoat]

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!

 

Yeah, this is true, and actually I think for those Christian groups that talk about this as a form of judgement, it actually means the same thing.  In the same way they would say death was judgement for sin - what that actually means is it's the inevitable consequence of that choice, not something imposed externally.

 

I think this is actually though why some thought about how to regulate gun ownership would be fruitful.  It's not just about the regulations themselves, though i they are well thought out they can have some impact.  It's the activity of turning the minds and hearts and attention of people in the direction of a different kind of culture.

 

That being said, I think just as important would be thinking about a society that is less fearful, particularly of other people and institutions.

[MercyA]

Yes, I know. Poppy wrote that the "regular citizen" didn't shoot him, then Mercy posted that article to "prove" that he did, when in fact that article backs up what Poppy had written. It was most likely a self-inflicted gunshot wound that brought the shooter down.

 

I don't think anyone has disputed that the guy killed himself. However, he fled the scene when a citizen started shooting at him and hit him. 

 

The Huffington Post is hardly a pro-gun site, and even they reported:

 

The man credited with firing the shots that chased off the gunman who killed 26 people in a Texas church on Sunday is speaking out. 

And Stephen Willeford wants people to remain focused on the victims. 

 

“All I want to stress today is the people in that church, they’re friends of mine, they’re family,†Willeford told 40/29 News, an ABC-affiliated station in Arkansas. He said: “And every time I heard a shot I knew that that probably represented a life. I was scared to death. I was. I was scared for me. I was scared for everyone of them, and I was scared for my own family that just lived less than a block away.†

 

Willeford said he grabbed his rifle from a safe and ran barefoot to the church when his daughter told him about the shooting. Once there, he confronted 26-year-old gunman Devin Patrick Kelley and the two traded gunfire. “I know I hit him,†Willeford said.

 

When Kelley fled the scene, Willeford flagged down a pickup truck belonging to local resident Johnnie Langendorff.

 

Those men are heroes. Full stop.

[Bluegoat]

And you used abortion as PART OF Killing being glorified in this country.

 

I am reading exactly what you are writing. Your words.

 

Yes, we have a culture of violence in this country. If you are *in any way* saying that people die from guns because abortion, you are perverting reality. And it's offensive because it is not true and it shifts responsibility from the people who contribute to this culture onto those of us who are sitting ducks.

 

If you aren't saying that people are dying from guns because abortion, then stop bringing up abortion in a thread about gun violence.

 

Anyone who thinks abortion is killing human beings is going to see it as part of a culture's attitude to violence, particularly because the numbers are pretty high.

 

In the same way if we lived in a culture that condoned infanticide - not that unusual historically - we might think that was a factor in social attitudes to violence.  Or that the fact that the US has the death penalty, from a Catholic perspective for example, is seen as being part of the same mindset.

 

Does the death penalty directly influence mass shootings - no.  Does it, however, say something about how the culture thinks about human life and what makes it valuable, how we relate to others?  Probably, yes.  Does it relate to how the culture understands and promotes individualism, how it understands justice?  Almost certainly.

 

Fundamentally, I think there are two reasons the US is so buggered up about guns.  One is the unfortunate historical accident that mentions them in the constitution and not only ties people's hands, but means that many people think of that as a guiding principle.  The second though is that sense of individualism, even isolationism, and a kind of capitalist social Darwinism that asserts itself.

 

That's why you have these problems with violence, and also why you can't get people to talk about regulation in any sensible way.  

 

A tragedy that gets people over that, just a little bit,  to talk about regulation might have the effect of turning people around, and eating away at the edges of the attitude.  But I think it's true that ultimately, it's bigger ideas and ways of living that are causing the problem.  And I can see why someone might say that addressing those things more directly is necessary to get to the point of talking about regulation.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Halftime Hope]

It was known he exchanged gunfire with a private citizen.  It was not known if one of those shots killed him or even if he had been hit.  Today they know that he died of a self-inflicted gunshot to the head and he had two non-fatal shots from the private citizen.  He was not *stopped* by the "good guy with a gun."  In fact, he fled after exchanging gunfire with the private citizen.

 

The way you wrote the above implies that there was no value to what the citizen did, as though it was of no consequence, and that the perp committed suicide. 

 

He most certainly was stopped by the "good guy with the gun."  Not stopped immediately, but definitely stopped.

 

1) You have no factual basis to describe the shots as non-fatal.  One can bleed out from a gunshot to the leg, and shots to the torso are notoriously deadly, again, from blood loss, which can take a bit of time.  You don't know; I don't know.

 

2) Yes, the perp fled in a car.  But he called his father, told him he didn't think he was going to make it, and then both lost control of his car and shot himself; the order of those is not known to us. 

 

Had there been no citizen responding, think what the difference would have been! 

 

News interviews with the driver of the car that chased the perp indicated that the citizen and the driver stood watch over the [presumed lifeless] body of the perp with a rifle trained on him, and that it took quite a long time for the police to arrive on the scene, presumably because they were all responding to the scene of the massacre.

 

Again, what if the armed citizen had not been there, and if he had not wounded and chased after the perp?  Do you think he would have fled until there was shootout with the cops?  Do you think he might have taken hostages or killed others along the way?  I do.  I have exactly zero logical reasons to believe that someone this consistently evil over a long time would not have done his best to inflict more evil on others.  

 

 

[Laura Corin]

 The second though is that sense of individualism, even isolationism, and a kind of capitalist social Darwinism that asserts itself.

 

 

I think that the cultural stereotype of the lone American man with a gun who makes things right is important and fearsome. 

 

Identifying an underlying cultural issue allows one to address it dispassionately, as Scotland did when hard-drinking Scots chose to impose stricter drink-driving limits than in the rest of the UK.  It was inconvenient, curtailed previous freedoms and wrecked some businesses (country pubs).  But it looked the issue square in the face and addressed it.

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-news/road-accident-deaths-17-year-drink-drive-limit-lowered/

 

[Aura]

Anyone who thinks abortion is killing human beings is going to see it as part of a culture's attitude to violence, particularly because the numbers are pretty high.

 

In the same way if we lived in a culture that condoned infanticide - not that unusual historically - we might think that was a factor in social attitudes to violence.  Or that the fact that the US has the death penalty, from a Catholic perspective for example, is seen as being part of the same mindset.

 

Does the death penalty directly influence mass shootings - no.  Does it, however, say something about how the culture thinks about human life and what makes it valuable, how we relate to others?  Probably, yes.  Does it relate to how the culture understands and promotes individualism, how it understands justice?  Almost certainly.

 

Fundamentally, I think there are two reasons the US is so buggered up about guns.  One is the unfortunate historical accident that mentions them in the constitution and not only ties people's hands, but means that many people think of that as a guiding principle.  The second though is that sense of individualism, even isolationism, and a kind of capitalist social Darwinism that asserts itself.

 

That's why you have these problems with violence, and also why you can't get people to talk about regulation in any sensible way.  

 

A tragedy that gets people over that, just a little bit,  to talk about regulation might have the effect of turning people around, and eating away at the edges of the attitude.  But I think it's true that ultimately, it's bigger ideas and ways of living that are causing the problem.  And I can see why someone might say that addressing those things more directly is necessary to get to the point of talking about regulation.

 

I strongly disagree with the bolded. Nothing about the constitution was accidental. The writers went through multiple revisions and worked diligently to produce a document that would unite everyone into a common nation. Everything in it was intentional. We may not all agree with it all of it now, but it was certainly not accidental. They had very good reasons for including the second amendment.

[Liz CA]

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?

 

 

 

The wording above suggests abortion has no relevance to you! This is your prerogative to opine. You may need to accept the fact that it has relevance to other people on this board. Again, can we debate this politely and respectfully?

Edited November 7, 2017 by Liz CA

[MercyA]

Within this thread are the outcries of people angry over the loss of innocent lives. I think that is why abortion was brought into the discussion by MercyA and others. For those of us who believe that life begins at conception, there is no more innocent a life than that of a baby in its mother’s womb. So, I think for Mercy it was natural to bring it up. If we want to cry out for the protection of life, it should apply to all life. Just my 2 cents on where Mercy was coming from with regard to abortion. (I am not speaking to the judgement of God issue at all.)

 

I agree with what you've said here regarding abortion, but I specifically brought it up in answer to Tibbie's question. She said:

 

"...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?...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..."

 

Some people didn't care for my answer, but it was a direct response to another poster's question. We *are* killing hundreds to millions of people at a time. It may be related; it may not. I think it probably is. 

 

It would be nice if people wouldn't question my motives and make incorrect assumptions about me just because I had the audacity to honestly answer another poster's question.  :)

[Bluegoat]

I strongly disagree with the bolded. Nothing about the constitution was accidental. The writers went through multiple revisions and worked diligently to produce a document that would unite everyone into a common nation. Everything in it was intentional. We may not all agree with it all of it now, but it was certainly not accidental. They had very good reasons for including the second amendment.

 

That's not really what I mean by an historical accident.  

 

Yes, they intended it, but it's pretty easy to imagine that they might not have chosen to include it - there is no historical necessity there.  The constitution likely would have been quite similar without it.  And they almost certainly did not anticipate the problems it's caused or the importance its taken on for some.

 

In a more flexible system, it might not matter much, the trouble with constitutions is that they tend to enshrine any problems, and even intensify them.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Ausmumof3]

I think that the cultural stereotype of the lone American man with a gun who makes things right is important and fearsome.

 

Identifying an underlying cultural issue allows one to address it dispassionately, as Scotland did when hard-drinking Scots chose to impose stricter drink-driving limits than in the rest of the UK. It was inconvenient, curtailed previous freedoms and wrecked some businesses (country pubs). But it looked the issue square in the face and addressed it.

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-news/road-accident-deaths-17-year-drink-drive-limit-lowered/

 

I think there's potential for a useful spin off thread about when or where it's reasonable to make laws that may negatively affect some to save others on a larger scale. I keep thinking of the parallels with having some homeschool oversight.

[goldberry]

I know that in this case, a crime was not reported properly that would have prevented this person from buying a gun.  In general though, when people talk about "more enforcement for our existing laws" what are they mostly referring to?  What existing laws are not being enforced that should be?  Also, is there not enforcement in general, or are penalties not significant enough to deter?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

But don’t you think our beliefs inform our thoughts on right and wrong and what laws should be in place to some extent?

 

 

Only to the extent that we are able to identify, source, and evaluate our own beliefs, to be careful of bias and blindness. Ideas of government come from somewhere. Every first world nation is governed by a code that largely originated further back in time. Same for religious beliefs and their effects on political doctrines - there is history. Nothing comes from nothing. So we get educated (and we should elect educated people who are qualified for their positions!) so we will be able to argue from Burke or Justinian or Alfred, Thomas Aquinas or Catholic doctrines of just war, compare Code Napoleon to Magna Carta...this is a jumble of sources but I'm in a hurry and going off the top of my head...

 

And then we all take who we are and where we come from TO the table, to create policy that is fair and just by all measures, and amenable to people of all beliefs.

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson said that conscientious men are all of one religion, meaning that a basic understanding of decency, right and wrong, truth in society, will be common among many, regardless of religious beliefs or absence thereof. These educated pragmatists will be able to reason together.

 

This is what it means to not live under a theocracy!

[Word Nerd]

Yes, I know. Poppy wrote that the "regular citizen" didn't shoot him, then Mercy posted that article to "prove" that he did, when in fact that article backs up what Poppy had written. It was most likely a self-inflicted gunshot wound that brought the shooter down.

 

No, it doesn't support Poppy's claim that the citizen didn't shoot the shooter, nor her condescending jab about not listening to lying news sources.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson said that conscientious men are all of one religion, meaning that a basic understanding of decency, right and wrong, truth in society, will be common among many, regardless of religious beliefs or absence thereof. These educated pragmatists will be able to reason together.

 

Unfortunately, he, too, was a product of his own time, experiences, reflection, and study.  It turns out that he was assuming a moral consensus that was obvious to him but has not held to the present day.  He was, regrettably, wrong.

[hornblower]

 

 

 

Those men are heroes. Full stop.

 

 

I disagree. 

 

26 dead is not a success story of good guy stopping bad guy. 

 

Good guy did not stop bad guy; bad guy just ran away.

Bad guy could have kept on shooting others after running away.

ood guy's actions just luckily didn't injure innocent bystanders or add to the confusion and impede law enforcement. It's a fluke. 

 

This is glorifying vigilantism. 

[8circles]

The wording above suggests abortion has no relevance to you! This is your prerogative to opine. You may need to accept the fact that it has relevance to other people on this board. Again, can we debate this politely and respectfully?

 

This is nonsense and irrational and rude & disrespectful.

 

It isn't polite or respectful to assume that I don't think abortion is relevant in general. That is never what I said.

 

Seriously, who has the energy to keep banging their head against a wall like this? Not me. I'm too tired from crying to continue.

[8circles]

 

It would be nice if people wouldn't question my motives and make incorrect assumptions about me just because I had the audacity to honestly answer another poster's question.  :)

 

Ditto, Mercy.  

Edited November 7, 2017 by 8circles

[MercyA]

I disagree. 

 

26 dead is not a success story of good guy stopping bad guy. 

 

Good guy did not stop bad guy; bad guy just ran away.

Bad guy could have kept on shooting others after running away.

Good guy's actions just luckily didn't injure innocent bystanders or add to the confusion and impede law enforcement. It's a fluke. 

 

This is glorifying vigilantism. 

 

I didn't say it was a success story. I said the men were heroes for attempting, at the risk of their own lives, to stop the killing.

 

We don't know what the results would have been had the shooter not been engaged by a citizen. Apparently the citizen injured the shooter badly enough that the shooter called his father and told him he didn't think he was going to make it. The shooter drove himself off the road after being shot and chased by two good guys. We all wish the whole thing had never happened, but I'm thankful that, at the end, the shooter was by himself in a ditch because of the actions of ordinary people.

 

I don't think it's vigilantism to try to stop someone who is killing other people right in front of you. 

 

But I do appreciate your thoughts, as always, and I'll think about what you've said.

[Carol in Cal.]

26 dead is not a success story of good guy stopping bad guy. 

 

Good guy did not stop bad guy; bad guy just ran away.

 

Sure it is.  He ran away because he was shot and because he was being chased and 'covered' he was unable to hurt any more people except himself.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Liz CA]

This is nonsense and irrational and rude & disrespectful.

 

It isn't polite or respectful to assume that I don't think abortion is relevant in general. That is never what I said.

 

Seriously, who has the energy to keep banging their head against a wall like this? Not me. I'm too tired from crying to continue.

 

Fair enough.

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

 

[MercyA]

Seriously, who has the energy to keep banging their head against a wall like this? Not me. I'm too tired from crying to continue.

 

Non-snarky  :grouphug: . We may not agree on everything, but I think I do understand your frustration.

 

Admittedly gun control is a topic I haven't thought a lot about, and I appreciate that we can discuss it here.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Unfortunately, he, too, was a product of his own time, experiences, reflection, and study.  It turns out that he was assuming a moral consensus that was obvious to him but has not held to the present day.  He was, regrettably, wrong.

I couldn't disagree more emphatically. On this very thread I am sitting here agreeing with Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics. In my wider circles, there are also Pagans, Heathens, Hindus and Buddhists who agree with me on political and social equality and justice, and on many other issues.

 

And if Emerson was wrong, so what then? Do we come up with a dominant religion and compel others to live under that code? Some are trying. It's called Christian dominionism, and ir influences politics at the highest levels.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I'm bowing out - I'm out of things to say.

[Cindy in FL.]

I should have taken the time to reread the posts. I’m sorry!

 

I agree with what you've said here regarding abortion, but I specifically brought it up in answer to Tibbie's question. She said:

 

"...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?...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..."

 

Some people didn't care for my answer, but it was a direct response to another poster's question. We *are* killing hundreds to millions of people at a time. It may be related; it may not. I think it probably is.

 

It would be nice if people wouldn't question my motives and make incorrect assumptions about me just because I had the audacity to honestly answer another poster's question. :)

[Bootsie]

I have not posted on this topic--given that I know people who are friends with the victims and friends with the family of the shooter (I do not personally know any of them), I have been trying to digest all of this.  

 

Then this morning the university where I teach went on lockdown because of an active shooter situation--luckily no one was seriously harmed; two shuttle bus drivers got into an argument and one pulled a gun and shot at the other and then fled, stealing the shuttle bus.  It has sounded like a war zone with helicopters overhead.  Every one is on edge and exhausted.

 

I just can't imagine what is going through someone's mind that they think pulling a gun is going to result in a situation that ends well.  

[MercyA]

I should have taken the time to reread the posts. I’m sorry!

 

No, no need to apologize at all! You didn't offend me in any way!

 

Who has time to go back and read everything, especially in threads like this? 

 

ETA: And I hope it goes without saying, but I certainly wasn't accusing you of questioning my motives or assumptions! I think you understand me pretty well.  :)

Edited November 7, 2017 by MercyA

[Aura]

I didn't say it was a success story. I said the men were heroes for attempting, at the risk of their own lives, to stop the killing.

 

We don't know what the results would have been had the shooter not been engaged by a citizen. Apparently the citizen injured the shooter badly enough that the shooter called his father and told him he didn't think he was going to make it. The shooter drove himself off the road after being shot and chased by two good guys. We all wish the whole thing had never happened, but I'm thankful that, at the end, the shooter was by himself in a ditch because of the actions of ordinary people.

 

I don't think it's vigilantism to try to stop someone who is killing other people right in front of you. 

 

But I do appreciate your thoughts, as always, and I'll think about what you've said.

 

Success story, no. But we NEED people to stand up and stop bad things when they're happening. Did the involved citizen stop the shooter? Did he keep him from killing more people? Maybe. Maybe not. The point is that people were dying, and he didn't hide in his home. He did something at the risk of his own life. So, yeah,  maybe not a success story. But they guy fits my definition of a hero. 

[Aura]

That's not really what I mean by an historical accident.  

 

Yes, they intended it, but it's pretty easy to imagine that they might not have chosen to include it - there is no historical necessity there.  The constitution likely would have been quite similar without it.  And they almost certainly did not anticipate the problems it's caused or the importance its taken on for some.

 

In a more flexible system, it might not matter much, the trouble with constitutions is that they tend to enshrine any problems, and even intensify them.

 

We're probably arguing semantics. I think that generally, we agree. But there's a big difference between accident and hindsight (two hundred years later in a world that I doubt many of our founders, if any, could have imagined.)

[Liz CA]

I have not posted on this topic--given that I know people who are friends with the victims and friends with the family of the shooter (I do not personally know any of them), I have been trying to digest all of this.  

 

Then this morning the university where I teach went on lockdown because of an active shooter situation--luckily no one was seriously harmed; two shuttle bus drivers got into an argument and one pulled a gun and shot at the other and then fled, stealing the shuttle bus.  It has sounded like a war zone with helicopters overhead.  Every one is on edge and exhausted.

 

I just can't imagine what is going through someone's mind that they think pulling a gun is going to result in a situation that ends well.  

 

How horrific. Trying to come to terms with what happened - knowing some families who are involved and then experiencing this. I am just glad nothing happened with the bus driver situation. I am too wondering what goes on in the minds of people.

 

[poppy]

No, it doesn't support Poppy's claim that the citizen didn't shoot the shooter, nor her condescending jab about not listening to lying news sources.

 

My jab was really aimed at this part:  The shooter was denied a gun permit. The law "worked" but it didn't stop him from having a gun illegally.

 

The guy was able to get  a gun at a gun store largely  because there is a check box where he has to say whether or not he committed a crime that would make it illegal for him to get the gun.  He didn't check the box.  If you think the law "worked" in any sense in this case --- if you think gun laws are adequate, if just enforced --- yeah, I think your sources are lying to you.

[Valley Girl]

I have not posted on this topic--given that I know people who are friends with the victims and friends with the family of the shooter (I do not personally know any of them), I have been trying to digest all of this.  

 

Then this morning the university where I teach went on lockdown because of an active shooter situation--luckily no one was seriously harmed; two shuttle bus drivers got into an argument and one pulled a gun and shot at the other and then fled, stealing the shuttle bus.  It has sounded like a war zone with helicopters overhead.  Every one is on edge and exhausted.

 

I just can't imagine what is going through someone's mind that they think pulling a gun is going to result in a situation that ends well.  

 

Was listening to that on the radio this morning as the first reports came in. So glad you're all safe.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Fair enough.

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

 

 

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

[Snoopytwo]

I disagree.

 

26 dead is not a success story of good guy stopping bad guy.

 

Good guy did not stop bad guy; bad guy just ran away.

Bad guy could have kept on shooting others after running away.

ood guy's actions just luckily didn't injure innocent bystanders or add to the confusion and impede law enforcement. It's a fluke.

This is glorifying vigilantism.

But....the bad guy dropped his gun and fled only after the good guy returned fire. Edited November 7, 2017 by rlreddy

[Liz CA]

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

 

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

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

 

[poppy]

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

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

 

 

We can accept it as part of someone's worship, of course.  But, what relevance can it possibly have to this discussion? Especially since the poster says it's always been this way, for hundreds of years, in the US.  Would banning abortion make for fewer tragedies?   Ending slavery didn't ( ~  4 million men, women and children at the time, and of course many million before that).  If that didn't make things better - and anyone who has studied this Jim Crow South could not say it did  - how can we logically conclude that ending abortion would make a difference?