Author Topic: Guns? Why?  (Read 6949 times)

Jim Butler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #135 on: May 25, 2022, 11:27:09 AM »
Fr. Slusser:
Steve Kerr of the Golden State Warriors basketball team commenting on tonight's situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPvf5RgCU08
He makes a good point.

Me:
Yes. He does.

He says we have to "do something." And what is that "something"? We have to pass HR 8! It's those 50 senators who are against HR 8 and if it was passed, it would fix everything! None of those shooting would have happened! HR 8 is the magic pill!

Well, here's HR 8: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8/text

So Father, and Charles, please tell me how HR 8 would have changed anything in any of the cases Kerr pointed to: Buffalo, the Taiwanese church, or Texas. Please, be specific.

Because as near as I can tell, it wouldn't have changed anything. This bill requires background checks. All three passed background checks. (I don't think Kerr realizes that background checks are already required by Federal law.)

Sorry, he didn't make a good point. He ranted. Overall, as an expert on gun control, Kerr is a good basketball coach.

Steve Kerr did not say we have to pass H.R. 8. His anger is directed at the senators who refuse to allow a vote on H.R. 8. That is what he claims 50 senators are blocking. They are blocking it because they can, despite the anguish and the anger of Americans.    When Kerr is enraged and disgusted by their paternalistic obstruction, I think he probably has a lot of company. Popular anger is not always a good basis for legislation, but legislators who ignore it should expect heat.

Peace,
Michael

Have you ever thought that Kerr has no idea what he is talking about? Maybe it isn't GOP power. Maybe its the uselessness of the law. As Senator Mike Rounds of SD put it, “it’s one thing to say that, regardless of the facts, you should just do something. The question is whether something you would do would actually make a difference.”
The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time. -- VP Kamala Harris

Coach-Rev

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Rev. Jeff Cottingham, STS
    • View Profile
    • Trinity Lutheran Church
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #136 on: May 25, 2022, 11:46:11 AM »
I will renew my objections to this whole thread, as it sure seems to have become a clear violation of the "non-political" rules that were enacted two years ago.

Please shut it down.  There is nothing new being said here, and the partisan lines are as stark as ever.

P.S.  There are at least 21 iterations of this same thread already archived on the forum...  and this list is just looking at the first 4 pages of searching for "guns."

A different take on the guns and schools debate
Guns, Government. and Gospel
Guns in church
Another School Shooting
Here's a Way to Control Guns
Another Explanation
Gun Control Again
Self Defense
The ALPB Guns and Ammo Thread
Church Shooting
What about guns in churches?
Resisting the deadly weapons culture
HHS and the NRA
Revolutionary Language of Gun Control
Joel Osteen Has Ushers With Guns
ALPB Forum Shooting Sports Fans
What does your congregation do to protect against an attack at the church?
Gun Control Issues and Clergy
A Frivolous Thread - Lutheran pastors and shooting sports
Louisiana moves to allow armed worshipers
ELCA PB weighs in on Trayvon Martin case
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln

blog:  http://coach-rev.blogspot.com/
photography:  https://jeffcottingham.smugmug.com/

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15018
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #137 on: May 25, 2022, 12:23:09 PM »
And do you think, Pastor Cottingham, that guns in our society are not a moral and religious problem, a moral and religious issue?
What is your real objection to continuing discussion of guns in our society?
I’m tired of the discussion too. But I’m also tired of continual news such as the horrors that were reported yesterday.
Of course it’s “political.“
And so is your discussion concerning abortion laws.
Retired ELCA Pastor. Former national staff Lutheran Church in America And the Lutheran world Federation, Geneva. Former journalist. Now retired and living in Minneapolis.

Randy Bosch

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #138 on: May 25, 2022, 12:23:49 PM »
The media continue to report more details about the young man who committed this atrocity:
1. Broken home;
2. Drug addicted mother;
3. Went from friends to no friends;
4. Moved in with grandmother to escape mother;
5. Abused animals;
6. Had an increasingly isolated and violent "social media" presence;
7. Passed some level of 'background check' which, per many/most? states excludes access to Juvenile records;
8. Crashed a car into a ditch while coming to the school hell-bent for mayhem;
9. Did not obey orders to not enter (School District touts its safety program for students and security personnel - nothing about ability to deter, good response to tsunami and earthquakes so not happening in Uvalde).  All good intentions in writing with no discernable effect.

Perhaps there should be some modicum of focus on overcoming the trauma of broken homes, addict parents, no peer caring and, apparently no spiritual guidance.
 
Another program need: Address the problems of glorifying violence including use of guns in movies and on-line "entertainment".

Please note that the writers, producers, and actors in these uber-violent 'entertainment features" are overwhelmingly progressive former liberals making millions from the swill they produce and glorify. 

A cynic might think that they actually are "gunning" for the perhaps inevitable violence in society that grows from their lucrative and celebrated enterprises.

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1500
    • View Profile
    • church history review
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #139 on: May 25, 2022, 12:40:25 PM »
Quote
7. Passed some level of 'background check' which, per many/most? states excludes access to Juvenile records;

This is one that could be addressed by law and could actually help screen out some of these shooters if implemented effectively (e.g., New York and Texas).

Incidentally, this is our neighborhood today. You can see why I'm interested in this discussion and practical suggestions.

https://www.10tv.com/mobile/article/news/local/multiple-shots-fired-police-substation-in-south-columbus-suspect-in-custody-after-chase/530-c9cd584f-62f7-433e-98c1-8af36e410ce7
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 12:49:50 PM by Rev. Edward Engelbrecht »
I serve as administrator for www.churchhistoryreview.org.

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7039
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #140 on: May 25, 2022, 01:54:48 PM »
And do you think, Pastor Cottingham, that guns in our society are not a moral and religious problem, a moral and religious issue?
What is your real objection to continuing discussion of guns in our society?
I’m tired of the discussion too. But I’m also tired of continual news such as the horrors that were reported yesterday.
Of course it’s “political.“
And so is your discussion concerning abortion laws.

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could discuss all of our problems openly?  We could discuss gun violence and abortion, immigration and border security, LFBTQ rights and protecting children, right-wing violence and left-wing violence, what is wrong with Western culture and what is good about Western culture, how our culture privileges men and how it privileges women, etc...  The problem is that in our society we have a whole list of "things that must not be discussed."  That is unfortunate.  What is more unfortunate is that the Church is divided along the same lines.  In almost every denomination and every congregation there are "things that must not be discussed." 

Your list of "things that must not be discussed" is quite long.  Those of your opponents is equally long.  Do you see a way past this impasse for the Church?

PS - I would quote Psalm 133, but we probably couldn't agree on the proper translation.

Behold, how good and pleasant it is
    when brothers dwell in unity!
  (Psalm 133:1)
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 01:57:39 PM by DCharlton »
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13474
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #141 on: May 25, 2022, 03:07:56 PM »
Some good points just upstream. And by all means, let us not now, not ever discuss limiting the number of guns floating through our country, changing our romantic attitudes towards guns, limiting  the types of guns that citizens may own (including howitzers and Abrams tanks), or requiring extensive mental health background checks on anybody who wants to buy any kind of weapon, including steak knives.
Discuss anything, anything at all. Just do not discuss limiting the numbers of guns or what kind of weapons we want to have in our neighborhoods. And discuss how you are going to deal with your neighbors and children when the next shooting is at their school.
OK, I'll bite, let's talk, but you'll need to be a bit more specific as to what the problems are that you want addressed, and what you have in mind to address them.


limiting the number of guns floating through our country,
Just what do you mean by the number of guns floating though our country? Are you referring to "street guns" guns that have no particular ownership but are passed from person to person, perhaps in an informal barter economy, or stolen from person to person, or lent from person to person as there is a need for a "piece" to commit a crime or other dubious purpose? If so, by all means let's reduce that number. The police and community organizations are all for getting those guns out of circulation and use various means, gun buy back programs, sweeps and searches for illegal weapons. Few would argue against reducing the number of those guns floating around. Do you have any new suggestions?


Or do you mean reducing the total number of guns owned by people in our country? What do you suggest? Formal gun rationing whereby communities are allowed only so many guns and once that limit is reached no more guns can be sold to residents? Limiting the number of guns each person or household may legally own? What do you have in mind that you'd like to discuss. I know you don't like to talk about Constitutional rights (unless it is the absolute Constitutional right to abortion, that must remain inviolate) but there are issues of limiting people's rights here, especially since most of the people that you would affect are law abiding citizens who have evidenced no tendency to mass murder.


Or perhaps raise taxes and license fees to the point where gun ownership is unaffordable for ordinary people. Perhaps make it a status thing for the upper class.


How many guns do you want to stop "floating" about the country. All of them? Half? What are you proposing. If we are going to discuss, we need some idea of what you have in mind.


changing our romantic attitudes towards guns,


What do you have in mind here? Perhaps a PSA campaign from HHS. "Just Say No to Guns" sounds snappy, or sappy. How about, "Friends Don't Let Friends Buy Guns." Maybe the Disinformation Governance Board could be revamped to counteract the misinformation on social media that "Guns are Cool." Have a code of conduct for the entertainment media to purge our entertainment media, movies, TV, Rap songs, books, comic books, etc. from pro-gun memes.


How do you suggest that we legislate away romantic attitudes towards guns?


limiting  the types of guns that citizens may own (including howitzers and Abrams tanks),


So far as I've seen, there are only two tanks in my rural county. One sits in front of the local VFW and the other is in front of the local AMVETS. I doubt that either could move on their own or actually fire a shot. Neither are Abrams tanks. I don't think that we have any howitzers in private hands. There are laws against many kinds of firearms and military hardware in private hands. Fully automatic weaponry are illegal for civilian ownership or use except for a few highly regulated situations. (As I recall, the MythBusters could on occasion fire some pretty excessive guns at specially regulated places and stringent restrictions.) Limiting the types of guns that citizens may own is already happening. We could talk about how you would like to expand those bans. Please be ready to demonstrate that you actually know the nature and functions of the firearms that you wish banned.


requiring extensive mental health background checks on anybody who wants to buy any kind of weapon, including steak knives.


Red flag laws exist in many places, and I think the majority of gun owners do not have a problem with them in concept. Actual implementation is more difficult. What gets someone red flagged needs to be carefully specified. I doubt that the standard that anyone who desires to own a firearm is automatically to be considered mentally unstable would fly. Coordination of these laws, and sharing of information about the people being red flagged likely needs to be greatly improved. Please, don't take away my steak knives, gumming a medium rare sirloin is very hard.


You want to talk, put what you have in mind on the table.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 03:11:23 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 8065
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #142 on: May 25, 2022, 03:53:24 PM »
The best way to deal with the exaggerated problem of "romanticizing" guns is to teach actual gun safety and marksmanship in schools.  My kids don't have a romanticized view of guns.  They know guns can kill people.  They've seen me bring home the meat and, in one case, trophy from killing large, human-sized animals with guns.  They respect guns and never misuse them precisely because they have properly used them and understand what it is they can do.

I bet that isn't the answer that is being sought.  But it is the correct answer.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15018
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #143 on: May 25, 2022, 05:02:44 PM »
No, Pastor Fienen, we will not talk. And here’s why.
   There is not one ounce of sincerity or seriousness in your posting. There is not one tiny word about your take on firearms in our country. There is only your hyper-ventilated snark and phantasmagoric characterizations of how and why you think I care about guns.
   The precise “number of guns” is not the issue, but you want to pretend that it is.
   You laughingly suggest “rations” on gun-owning, your usual extremist response. Not helpful. And you try to turn it into some kind of “class warfare.” Your treat my sarcastic reference to tanks as if it were a real concern and you mock my references to our gun culture.
   You make it clear that you do not believe the problem exists; you offer no serious response. You only snark, mock, and mischaracterize my comments.
   We will not talk. And I suspect that as with the other Holy Heifer here, there can be no serious discussion of gun violence in the current ALPB forum.
   The only seriousness has been from Pastor Morris, perhaps because - unlike most of us - he has been closest to the problem. And he is dealing with it as a pastor of a parish, rather than as a general citizen. We general citizens admire what he has done and is doing. But we (and should be) are elsewhere in our responses.
   
Retired ELCA Pastor. Former national staff Lutheran Church in America And the Lutheran world Federation, Geneva. Former journalist. Now retired and living in Minneapolis.

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7039
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #144 on: May 25, 2022, 05:06:54 PM »
No, Pastor Fienen, we will not talk. And here’s why.
   There is not one ounce of sincerity or seriousness in your posting.

King of Irony
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3614
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #145 on: May 25, 2022, 05:07:29 PM »
No, Pastor Fienen, we will not talk. And here’s why.
   There is not one ounce of sincerity or seriousness in your posting.
The moderators and the ALPB should be embarrassed that they give this man a platform and even publish him.

This is why I cannot give this organization one dime as long as this continues.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #146 on: May 25, 2022, 06:18:43 PM »
I looked up Universal Background Check to learn more about it. New York and California already have laws in place. Sadly, they did not prevent the most recent public/mass shootings in those states. Texas doesn't have this particular law.

"Universal Background Check" laws can't prevent mass shootings.  Those who perpetrate such crimes carefully plan their crimes months in advance.  Most of them pass background checks and purchase firearms legally, often because the warning signs they've shown are ignored.  Others obtain their firearms by theft (sometimes after killing a family member) or purchase from criminals who wouldn't run a background check even if the law said they had to.

The other feature of most proposed "Universal Background Check" laws is the burden they place on honest people.  Background checks cost money, which these laws generally require the person transferring the firearm to pay.  Some proposals require background checks to transfer firearms between family members.  Others are more lenient, but the line gets drawn somewhere.  Loan a firearm to your sister who lives in another household, pay a fee.  Your sister returns it, pay another fee.  Is it any wonder gun owners don't support these laws once they see the actual text of the proposal?

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #147 on: May 25, 2022, 06:22:40 PM »
limiting the types of guns that citizens may own (including howitzers and Abrams tanks)
Well, at least you didn't jump to nuclear weapons as some do.

requiring extensive mental health background checks on anybody who wants to buy any kind of weapon, including steak knives.
After all, anybody who would "buy any kind of weapon, including steak knives" is suspect.  Who knows what evil they might get up to?

Your arguments on this subject make me laugh.

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1500
    • View Profile
    • church history review
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #148 on: May 25, 2022, 06:48:29 PM »
I looked up Universal Background Check to learn more about it. New York and California already have laws in place. Sadly, they did not prevent the most recent public/mass shootings in those states. Texas doesn't have this particular law.

"Universal Background Check" laws can't prevent mass shootings.  Those who perpetrate such crimes carefully plan their crimes months in advance.  Most of them pass background checks and purchase firearms legally, often because the warning signs they've shown are ignored.  Others obtain their firearms by theft (sometimes after killing a family member) or purchase from criminals who wouldn't run a background check even if the law said they had to.

The other feature of most proposed "Universal Background Check" laws is the burden they place on honest people.  Background checks cost money, which these laws generally require the person transferring the firearm to pay.  Some proposals require background checks to transfer firearms between family members.  Others are more lenient, but the line gets drawn somewhere.  Loan a firearm to your sister who lives in another household, pay a fee.  Your sister returns it, pay another fee.  Is it any wonder gun owners don't support these laws once they see the actual text of the proposal?

Laws/rules have their usefulness, as our catechisms plainly teach, unless one would argue for lawlessness. I'm sure you don't intend that. We use background checks in hiring, volunteer programs, etc. They are a commonly accepted practice. Where they can deter the sale of arms to violent, unstable people, most Americans would support that, I think.

Now concerning the burden on honest people, every honest driver bears the burden for dishonest and uninsured drivers. Would we do away with drivers licenses and insurance because they burden the honest? I'm sure no one would propose that. By analogy, if we wish to bear arms safely, there will be laws regulating their use. The challenge is to discover effect laws for that purpose.
I serve as administrator for www.churchhistoryreview.org.

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1276
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Guns? Why?
« Reply #149 on: May 25, 2022, 06:57:22 PM »
I looked up Universal Background Check to learn more about it. New York and California already have laws in place. Sadly, they did not prevent the most recent public/mass shootings in those states. Texas doesn't have this particular law.

"Universal Background Check" laws can't prevent mass shootings.  Those who perpetrate such crimes carefully plan their crimes months in advance.  Most of them pass background checks and purchase firearms legally, often because the warning signs they've shown are ignored.  Others obtain their firearms by theft (sometimes after killing a family member) or purchase from criminals who wouldn't run a background check even if the law said they had to.

The other feature of most proposed "Universal Background Check" laws is the burden they place on honest people.  Background checks cost money, which these laws generally require the person transferring the firearm to pay.  Some proposals require background checks to transfer firearms between family members.  Others are more lenient, but the line gets drawn somewhere.  Loan a firearm to your sister who lives in another household, pay a fee.  Your sister returns it, pay another fee.  Is it any wonder gun owners don't support these laws once they see the actual text of the proposal?

Laws/rules have their usefulness, as our catechisms plainly teach, unless one would argue for lawlessness. I'm sure you don't intend that. We use background checks in hiring, volunteer programs, etc. They are a commonly accepted practice. Where they can deter the sale of arms to violent, unstable people, most Americans would support that, I think.

Now concerning the burden on honest people, every honest driver bears the burden for dishonest and uninsured drivers. Would we do away with drivers licenses and insurance because they burden the honest? I'm sure no one would propose that. By analogy, if we wish to bear arms safely, there will be laws regulating their use. The challenge is to discover effect laws for that purpose.

Would you believe it fair if the burden on an honest driver were a fee of thousand dollars of anytime the car was driven by someone other than its owner?  That would be the proportionate cost to that you seem willing to impose on honest gun owners.  Drive the cost up that far and car owners will surely object just as gun owners do.  This, for something that seems unlikely to have little effect on crime, given that criminals won't have background checks performed anyway.