Politics and Mass Shootings

[Robert Johnson]

Also, Pastor Hannah's repeated insistence in calling AR-15s "weapons of war" is now intentional false witness.  Liars lie.  Since he has been corrected, I can only assume the truth is not a factor in his discourse here, and will consider his words accordingly.

A repeat offender.

[peter_speckhard]

The abortion pill does not cause abortions; women who take them cause abortions. No need to ban that pill.

Peace, JOHN

There are lots of things that can/do cause abortion that ought not be banned because abortion isn't their purpose. Many chemicals and drugs can be lethal if mishandled. A person can kill himself with sleeping pills, and while doing so is murder, that doesn't mean sleeping pills should be banned. I know many people who own guns. Precisely zero of them have ever shot anyone or hope/intend to ever shoot anyone. That amounts to proof positive, i.e. unarguable truth, that the purpose of the guns is not for use in killing people.

[James S. Rustad]

Follow the money, Pastor Preus . See what the NRA contribute to politicians, at every single level of our society.
I'll ask it again. Tell me why any citizen who is not a member of Ethan Allen's Green Mountain boys in the Times of the American revolution, needs to carry the same kind of weapon used by those in the military services. Are hunters allowed do use weapons which fire 100 rounds a minute or more? Why are these kinds of weapons on the market? Ditto for the flesh-destroying ammo.

AR-15s (and similar guns) are not "same kind of weapon used by those in the military services".

AR-15s (and similar guns) fire no faster than any other semiautomatic rifle.  They all fire once per trigger pull.  None of them fire "100 rounds per minute or more".

AR-15s (and similar guns) are not anything special when it comes to power.  In fact, the .223 and 5.56 rounds are way less powerful than many of those used for hunting.  For example, the .223 and 5.56 have somewhat higher muzzle velocities than the venerable .30-30 Winchester, but the .30-30 has a higher muzzle energy.  Most people regard energy as the major determining factor for the performance of a round.

As for "flesh-destroying ammo", most common rifle rounds use the same designs as are used in the .223 and 5.56.  Since most common rifle rounds are more powerful than the .223 and 5.56, they are more destructive.  This is by design as it is desirable to kill game animals as quickly as possible.

David Kopel has a great article explaining why AR rifle ammunition is less powerful than most other rifle ammunition.

I know this has been explained to you repeatedly, but it seems it just never sinks in.  Yet I feel the need to continue pointing out the falsehoods you (and your media brethren) continue to put forth as truth lest someone who doesn't know any better believe you.

[Chris Schelp]

Follow the money, Pastor Preus . See what the NRA contribute to politicians, at every single level of our society.
I'll ask it again. Tell me why any citizen who is not a member of Ethan Allen's Green Mountain boys in the Times of the American revolution, needs to carry the same kind of weapon used by those in the military services. Are hunters allowed do use weapons which fire 100 rounds a minute or more? Why are these kinds of weapons on the market? Ditto for the flesh-destroying ammo.

.

Why does any citizen need to have golf clubs? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours.

[peter_speckhard]

Follow the money, Pastor Preus . See what the NRA contribute to politicians, at every single level of our society.
I'll ask it again. Tell me why any citizen who is not a member of Ethan Allen's Green Mountain boys in the Times of the American revolution, needs to carry the same kind of weapon used by those in the military services. Are hunters allowed do use weapons which fire 100 rounds a minute or more? Why are these kinds of weapons on the market? Ditto for the flesh-destroying ammo.

.

Why does any citizen need to have golf clubs? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours.

Nobody needs a sports car. They are dangerous and sometimes lethal, and are designed to break the law in terms of speed. Nobody needs a swimming pool. They cause many deaths every year and are a frivolous luxury. Nobody needs a bottle of wine, and alcohol causes untold misery. Nobody needs a crossbow, a ski boat, or a host of other things that can be lethal when misused, whether by intention or accident. But everybody needs to be free of busybodies who take it upon themselves to determine what other people need and what they should be allowed to have.

In the case of guns, Roosevelt famously said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." That's what irks the progressive's inner totalitarian-- that the people whose lives he wants to control don't have to listen to him and can decide not to be controlled by him as long as they have that big stick.   

[Dan Fienen]

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.


A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.


We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I am curious why theologians don't spend more of their mental energy, time, and effort trying to ban sin rather than inanimate objects.  Another mystery of life I guess.

Sin will not end until Christ returns and the new heaven and new earth are created.

[Chris Schelp]

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.


A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.


We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

Which leads directly back to my question posed on the thread a little while back that was closed down (correctly, I believe, because the conversation was once again leading toward shouting instead of discussion), which hopefully I can pose again here and may lead to better discussion: why do we feel the need to "do something," especially something very disruptive that will quite likely have far-reaching ramifications? Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

[aletheist]

Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

Yes, that would be the wise approach, but our fallen human nature results in a persistent tendency toward foolishness.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.


A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.


We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

Which leads directly back to my question posed on the thread a little while back that was closed down (correctly, I believe, because the conversation was once again leading toward shouting instead of discussion), which hopefully I can pose again here and may lead to better discussion: why do we feel the need to "do something," especially something very disruptive that will quite likely have far-reaching ramifications? Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

There is the need to "do something" whenever there are death-causing events. We've been "doing something" to combat cancer for decades. We've discovered more and more ways to keep cancer from killing people. People "did something" when AIDS was killing everyone infected with it. We found ways to stop the virus from killing people. Over my nearly 60 years of driving, I've seen many improvements in automobile safety to try and reduce the number of fatalities from auto accidents. Seat belts, shoulder belts, padded dashes, airbags in front, and now on the sides, adaptive cruise control, beeping when drowsy drivers get out of their lanes, automatic breaking when there is something in front or in back, etc.


It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

[James S. Rustad]

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.

A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.

We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

Which leads directly back to my question posed on the thread a little while back that was closed down (correctly, I believe, because the conversation was once again leading toward shouting instead of discussion), which hopefully I can pose again here and may lead to better discussion: why do we feel the need to "do something," especially something very disruptive that will quite likely have far-reaching ramifications? Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

There is the need to "do something" whenever there are death-causing events. We've been "doing something" to combat cancer for decades. We've discovered more and more ways to keep cancer from killing people. People "did something" when AIDS was killing everyone infected with it. We found ways to stop the virus from killing people. Over my nearly 60 years of driving, I've seen many improvements in automobile safety to try and reduce the number of fatalities from auto accidents. Seat belts, shoulder belts, padded dashes, airbags in front, and now on the sides, adaptive cruise control, beeping when drowsy drivers get out of their lanes, automatic breaking when there is something in front or in back, etc.

It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

Indeed it is.  However, it does no good to "do something" that will not make a difference while punishing innocent people for something that does not hurt anyone.

[Fletch1]

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.


A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.


We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

Which leads directly back to my question posed on the thread a little while back that was closed down (correctly, I believe, because the conversation was once again leading toward shouting instead of discussion), which hopefully I can pose again here and may lead to better discussion: why do we feel the need to "do something," especially something very disruptive that will quite likely have far-reaching ramifications? Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

There is the need to "do something" whenever there are death-causing events. We've been "doing something" to combat cancer for decades. We've discovered more and more ways to keep cancer from killing people. People "did something" when AIDS was killing everyone infected with it. We found ways to stop the virus from killing people. Over my nearly 60 years of driving, I've seen many improvements in automobile safety to try and reduce the number of fatalities from auto accidents. Seat belts, shoulder belts, padded dashes, airbags in front, and now on the sides, adaptive cruise control, beeping when drowsy drivers get out of their lanes, automatic breaking when there is something in front or in back, etc.


It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

Sinful humans almost always pursue the theology of glory. If we belong to a church, even the church of self, we want to create heaven on earth. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences are frequently worse than the way it was before the virtue signaling and "doing something, anything, bedamned the facts" efforts.

[DCharlton]

I propose some new laws. Citizens are allowed to own guns, even though the 2nd Amendment really deals with state militia. But there should be restrictions on the type of guns owned by those not in the military services or law enforcement. And here they are, designed to prevent mass shootings of the type we have seen nearly 200 times this year.
   1. Guns owned by citizens not in law enforcement professions may only fire one bullet at a time. Then, before firing again they must be re-loaded with another single bullet or a device on the weapon will not allow that same gun to be fired for three minutes.
   2. No one is allowed to own the kind of bullets designed to do maximum damage to bodies.
   3. All magazines with six, nine or a hundred bullets are prohibited with significant fines if they are sold or owned.

PS: Among the most numbed-brain, stupid discussions in this whole topic of gun violence is whether an AR-15, AK-47, or any other set of letters and numbers is really a "weapon of war," or an "assault rifle." The victims and families of those killed by something that rapid fires flesh-destroying lead don't care.

Why such a narrow approach to mass shootings?  I will up the ante:

1.  Ban all the guns Charles wants banned.
2.  Make it illegal for elected officials to hire private armed security.
3.  Increase funding for law enforcement in order to implement new gun laws.
4.  Impose "stop and frisk" in every jurisdiction in the U.S. until all guns are confiscated.
5.  Fire prosecutors who fail to enforce laws, or who release violent offenders early.
6.  Increase funding for mental health services.
7.  Increase the power of the state to commit mentally ill individuals.
8.  Increase funding for drug and alcohol rehab.
9.  Make drug and alcohol rehab mandatory for those who break the law.
10.  Prosecute people guilty of political violence. 
11.  Impeach elected officials who provide aid and comfort to those who commit political violence.
12.  Allow parents to use state fund to send their children to religious schools.
13. Change welfare and tax laws to encourage marriage and two parent households.
14.  Increase the ability of the state to regulate violent content in movies and video games.
15.  Increase regulation of social media so that there is less incitement to violence.
16.  Increase review and regulation of medications given to minors.
17.  Look into whether hormone therapy for transgender people increases mental illness and violence.  If necessary, regulate the use of such drugs.
18.  Regain control of the southern border of the U.S. in order to reduce the flow of drugs and illegal guns into the US.

#1 alone may reduce the number of legal guns available for mass murders, but it will not address the reasons people commit mass murder.  Nor will #1 reduce the amount of illegal guns available to for mass murders.

[Steven W Bohler]

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.


A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.


We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

Which leads directly back to my question posed on the thread a little while back that was closed down (correctly, I believe, because the conversation was once again leading toward shouting instead of discussion), which hopefully I can pose again here and may lead to better discussion: why do we feel the need to "do something," especially something very disruptive that will quite likely have far-reaching ramifications? Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

There is the need to "do something" whenever there are death-causing events. We've been "doing something" to combat cancer for decades. We've discovered more and more ways to keep cancer from killing people. People "did something" when AIDS was killing everyone infected with it. We found ways to stop the virus from killing people. Over my nearly 60 years of driving, I've seen many improvements in automobile safety to try and reduce the number of fatalities from auto accidents. Seat belts, shoulder belts, padded dashes, airbags in front, and now on the sides, adaptive cruise control, beeping when drowsy drivers get out of their lanes, automatic breaking when there is something in front or in back, etc.


It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

And all -- ALL -- of those things to make driving safer are examples of the "small" changes that Mr. Schelp suggested rather the "very disruptive" change like banning automobiles entirely, or even whole classes of automobiles.  So, what would be some possible "small" changes you would suggest for this matter?

[MaddogLutheran]

It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

"Do something" is the single biggest demagoguery in our political discourse at present.

Because it pretends that all problems have a solution, or that attempts at/proposed solutions have no negative consequences.

So no, it is not always in our best interest to "do something".  Because the something may not make things better, and could make things worse for "one" person.  See how the "one" person standard can work against you?