Nashville School Shooting

[Mountain Man]

Overall-Homicide.jpg



ThisIsFine.jpg

Taking the US as a whole gives an inaccurate picture because the statistics are skewed by liberal hell holes such as Chicago, New York, and Baltimore where violent crime is almost unchecked. In general, those areas of the US with the least restrictive gun laws, and therefore the highest rates of legal gun ownership, tend to have the lowest rates of violent crime.

[Mountain Man]

I do believe that we are not supposed to be a people that returns evil for evil, and that this should drive our decisions in these matters.

It is not evil to use a weapon to defend oneself and others from harm. If someone tried to harm my family, you better believe that I would use every means at my disposal to stop them, and I believe it would be a sin to do otherwise.

[oxmixmudd]

Or they realize few will bother to read the fine print and figured they'd list them as a CYA so that if their deliberately dishonest cherry picking got exposed they could say they were open about selecting different dates for different countries.

The honest thing to do would have been to select the same year for all the countries but they deliberately decided not to do that.

Why don't you find out why first, that way you know if the data is legit or not. Have you checked into it, or are you just dismissing it because you don't like it. The reality is, at least when I've looked at these statistics, it is the gun lobby side that tries to spin it. Per capita rates, and especially median result (which help avoid skewing the data by single extraordinary event) are much higher in the US than the EU/Canada/UK.

[Sparko]

Whether you realize it or not, that is the simple reality we all face at all times. We do what we can to be responsible and to minimize that risk, but no one knows when they will die or how.



That is a poorly worded statement. God allows all sorts of evil in this world. And God does not promise to stop it from affecting me. He does promise He will be with me whatever happens.

Wnat is God's will is that I seek Him about His will for my life. And that I follow His direction in it. And what I have shared with you is the result of that prayerful seeking of Him on this issue. I have seen how easy it is for kids to get hold of a gun by accident. And I have seen God protect from evil. So for me, the responsible thing that is faithful to God and driven by my Faith in Him is NOT to have guns in the home.

So you trust God's will in the situation where your family is in danger from an armed criminal threatening your lives, but not in the situation of keeping your children safe from you having a gun in your home? As far as I know, all of your children are adults or near adults so why would they play with a gun? And why would you not have trained them on it's use and safety? We had guns in our homes growing up. Heck my dad stored his shotguns hanging on the wall in my younger brother's bedroom. We never once tried to play with them. Because we knew they were dangerous. We had been hunting with him and shot squirrels and rabbits. We were trained on how to handle guns.

I do not believe it is 'unchristian' to have a Gun. I believe that for me it is not God's will. That He does not want me trusting in a weapon for personal safety. And I am explaining my personal choice and conviction for this time and for where I live and have lived based on your question to me about what I would want. I am not teaching what is correct doctrine, nor am I saying that is what other people should necessarily do.

OK I can understand that. I am just wondering why you seem to think it's OK for you to tell others what they can have in their own homes? Why you feel it is OK for you to call for banning of certain types of guns and rifles, especially since you don't seem to have ANY experience with guns or types of guns. Yet you feel yourself to be an expert on which ones should be "banned"

However, I do believe that we are not supposed to be a people that returns evil for evil, and that this should drive our decisions in these matters. There is no world where my being a Christian and me taking an aggressive, violent posture against evildoers are compatible. Jesus told us specifically we are not to return evil for evil, we turn the other cheek, we pray for those that persecute us, we do not seek revenge. There always must be room for grace and mercy. So whatever decisions we make about personal safety must first be run through that filter, and that sobering realization that we are not here to war against evildoers, but to be the light of God in an evil world and facilitate saving them should guide everything we do. And sometimes that means risking laying down our lives for those principles and for the good

I don't think defending someone else's life or your own life as "returning evil" - Do you think police are evil for using guns to defend people or shoot violent criminals in self defense? Do you think the police were returning evil for evil when they shot that woman who was shooting up the school in Nashville? If a teacher had had a gun and shot the shooter who was shooting up her classroom, would that be returning evil for evil?

No - I do not live in a war zone Sparko. Where I live is very, very safe. I can not with a clear conscience claim to need a gun where I live. As far as I know, I have never lived in a place that truly would mean I needed a gun in the home for personal protection.

You live in this world Jim. It is a battlefield between God and Satan's forces. it is a war that has been going on for thousands of years. You are not safe. Just watch the news. You could be the victim of a violent crime at any point in time or any place. In your home, in the park, out shopping.

We agree there. Indeed, our form of government requires a moral and upright people to properly function. Especially if we are going to allow the general population to have guns. But we are less and less what is required for our government to work. And right now I do not believe that we as a society can be trusted to have guns. Only some of us can. And so we need filters on who can have them. We need to do whatever we can to make sure that only those among us that are mentally and morally stable and compatible with such a responsibility have them.

And yet our country's founders realized that the bigger danger was an overreaching government, so they sought to protect our rights to defend ourselves and to protect our freedoms by having guns. We can see what happens to unarmed peoples in other countries that have had authoritarian governments. Sometimes we have to put up with some risks in order to have freedom. Free speech has consequences and risks. As does owning guns.

We do face many different sorts of problems, some of which feed on each other. But that does not mean we can't take steps to reduce the likelihood of mass shootings.

Like allowing people to carry their own guns to protect themselves. The likelihood of a criminal attacking a place where he knows the "victims" could be armed is a lot less than him attacking a known soft target area where guns are few or not allowed at all.

This is a mix if truth and untruth, but a rabbit trail wrt the discussion of mass shootings and what can/should be done to help prevent them.

No Jim, it's all tied together. they are all signs of the decline of our civilization. Irrational beliefs, canceling anyone who disagrees, refusing to prosecute criminals, making the police the bad guys, it all feeds and reinforces the problem.

We agree in the sense of what is required to fully solve the problem. But part of being the light in the world is being that which leads others to Christ. And that means taking steps to better the world we are in. Feeding the poor, helping the sick, those in prison, these are all steps to bringing good and life into the world. We are NEVER allowed to take our light and hide it away. We are NEVER allowed to turn a blind eye to evil because "the end is coming and the Bible says things are going to be this way in the end". WE who follow Christ are to bring His light into this world. And that means BOTH sharing the Gospel and BEING the gospel. We don't just preach, we also do. We don't pray over the hungry and walk away, we also FEED them.

We agree on this. We don't give up. But that doesn't mean we can't at the same time defend our families.

WRT this situation, we work with those that would act to reduce the likelihood the unfit can get guns. We don't work against them. We work to reduce the capability of evil to act in this world.

I am for actually stopping those who would be criminals, but your solutions are "pie in the sky" and unworkable. You can't give mental exams to people wanting guns. What criteria would you use? How easy could it be abused by the government? Who actually decides that someone is unfit? Even if they were completely fit when they got the gun, what's to stop them from becoming insane a week or month later? And most states already have red flag laws, to prevent mentally ill people from getting guns. Tennessee does. And that didn't stop this woman from getting several guns and shooting up the school. So having such laws don't seem to work, yet you want to add MORE such laws? How would that fix things? It's just you wanting to solve the problem and feeling frustrated. I understand that. But we have plenty of laws geared to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from having guns and they aren't working.

[Sparko]

Taking the US as a whole gives an inaccurate picture because the statistics are skewed by liberal hell holes such as Chicago, New York, and Baltimore where violent crime is almost unchecked. In general, those areas of the US with the least restrictive gun laws, and therefore the highest rates of legal gun ownership, tend to have the lowest rates of violent crime.

Yeah they should take Europe as a whole if they are going to take the US as a whole. Each state is about the size and population of a European country.

[Sparko]

Why don't you find out why first, that way you know if the data is legit or not. Have you checked into it, or are you just dismissing it because you don't like it. The reality is, at least when I've looked at these statistics, it is the gun lobby side that tries to spin it. Per capita rates, and especially median result (which help avoid skewing the data by single extraordinary event) are much higher in the US than the EU/Canada/UK.

funny that Starlight didn't provide a link to the data.

[rogue06]

Why don't you find out why first, that way you know if the data is legit or not. Have you checked into it, or are you just dismissing it because you don't like it. The reality is, at least when I've looked at these statistics, it is the gun lobby side that tries to spin it. Per capita rates, and especially median result (which help avoid skewing the data by single extraordinary event) are much higher in the US than the EU/Canada/UK.

What I do know is that they purposefully and intentionally choose to provide mixed up dates thereby deliberately painting an inaccurate picture. Shouldn't that be enough?

[oxmixmudd]

It is not evil to use a weapon to defend oneself and others from harm. If someone tried to harm my family, you better believe that I would use every means at my disposal to stop them, and I believe it would be a sin to do otherwise.

Did I say it was always evil to use such a weapon in self-defense?

[oxmixmudd]

What I do know is that they purposefully and intentionally choose to provide mixed up dates thereby deliberately painting an inaccurate picture. Shouldn't that be enough?

You know nothing about the intent. All you know is that the source data was compiled at different times. You don't know why it was compiled at different times, or why they chose the data they did. Compilations of that sort may not be done every year for every nation (here's a thought - maybe they just don't need to do it every year because the event is so rare?). So you need to know more about the data itself before you ascribe 'deception' as the motive.

[oxmixmudd]

So you trust God's will in the situation where your family is in danger from an armed criminal threatening your lives, but not in the situation of keeping your children safe from you having a gun in your home? As far as I know, all of your children are adults or near adults so why would they play with a gun? And why would you not have trained them on it's use and safety? We had guns in our homes growing up. Heck my dad stored his shotguns hanging on the wall in my younger brother's bedroom. We never once tried to play with them. Because we knew they were dangerous. We had been hunting with him and shot squirrels and rabbits. We were trained on how to handle guns.

So now you are going to try to judge me for giving you the honest answer to your question? look at you - trying to pretend I should not feel the way because my children are grown. Well first of all I was telling you the decision I made when they were young. A decision I so far see no need to change. And this is so offensive to you - why? Are you so insecure in your believe you should have a gun that my decision not to makes you uneasy?

I also grew up around guns. And that experience shaped my conclusion. Especially wrt children getting access to guns when they should not. Is the answer I would not choose to have a gun in my home because of the potential danger to my children from its presence now anathama and no longer a 'Christian' choice? Am I not allowed to factor into my decision a time when a child I knew got access to a gun that was normally locked up with almost disastrous results into my thinking? And who are you to judge that? I think you need to rethink your responses here.

OK I can understand that. I am just wondering why you seem to think it's OK for you to tell others what they can have in their own homes? Why you feel it is OK for you to call for banning of certain types of guns and rifles, especially since you don't seem to have ANY experience with guns or types of guns. Yet you feel yourself to be an expert on which ones should be "banned"

You are being obtuse. You can't have heroin in your house because it is illegal and harmful to society. You can't have child porn in your house because it is illegal and harmful to society. When something is illegal to own, you can't have it in your house. Further, the discussion here is not about banning all guns, but rather putting limits on gun ownership with very severe limits (possiby a ban) on the subset of guns most likely to be used in mass shootings, the ones that make mass shootings particularly easy to carry out.

I don't think defending someone else's life or your own life as "returning evil" - Do you think police are evil for using guns to defend people or shoot violent criminals in self defense? Do you think the police were returning evil for evil when they shot that woman who was shooting up the school in Nashville? If a teacher had had a gun and shot the shooter who was shooting up her classroom, would that be returning evil for evil?

I didn't say any of these things were wrong, and really, it's pretty obvious in most cases they are not. So maybe you should think a little less shallowly about the point I was making.

You live in this world Jim. It is a battlefield between God and Satan's forces. it is a war that has been going on for thousands of years. You are not safe. Just watch the news. You could be the victim of a violent crime at any point in time or any place. In your home, in the park, out shopping.

And in that war, we are told not to return evil for evil. And so that has to shape our responses to all of these issues. There is a paradox here. Does Jesus statement demand we let someone abuse another person? No. But if taken absolutely literally they would. So there is more to it than that - isn't there? And yet, at the same time, if we are going to change the world, we can't just live as the world does, returning evil for evil, seeking revenge, arbitrarily destroying what we perceive as a threat. We are not to be motivated by fear, but by love. We bring redemption and life, not destruction and judgement. And that is the filter through which all this has be run.

And yet our country's founders realized that the bigger danger was an overreaching government, so they sought to protect our rights to defend ourselves and to protect our freedoms by having guns. We can see what happens to unarmed peoples in other countries that have had authoritarian governments. Sometimes we have to put up with some risks in order to have freedom. Free speech has consequences and risks. As does owning guns.

Like allowing people to carry their own guns to protect themselves. The likelihood of a criminal attacking a place where he knows the "victims" could be armed is a lot less than him attacking a known soft target area where guns are few or not allowed at all.

And yet, a civilized society is not marked by all it's citizens packing. It's an absurdity to think that one would rather have everyone publicly armed in every venue that to have restrictions on gun ownership for the sake of public safety. It marks a fundamental and catastrophic failure of both Democracy and the respect for individual freedom if THAT is the only solution.

No Jim, it's all tied together. they are all signs of the decline of our civilization. Irrational beliefs, canceling anyone who disagrees, refusing to prosecute criminals, making the police the bad guys, it all feeds and reinforces the problem.


We agree on this. We don't give up. But that doesn't mean we can't at the same time defend our families.

I am for actually stopping those who would be criminals, but your solutions are "pie in the sky" and unworkable. You can't give mental exams to people wanting guns. What criteria would you use? How easy could it be abused by the government? Who actually decides that someone is unfit? Even if they were completely fit when they got the gun, what's to stop them from becoming insane a week or month later? And most states already have red flag laws, to prevent mentally ill people from getting guns. Tennessee does. And that didn't stop this woman from getting several guns and shooting up the school. So having such laws don't seem to work, yet you want to add MORE such laws? How would that fix things? It's just you wanting to solve the problem and feeling frustrated. I understand that. But we have plenty of laws geared to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from having guns and they aren't working.

We don't have 'plenty of laws'. In fact, the Gun lobbies and now even the Supreme court routinely push to or directly invalidate laws that ARE working, increasing the problem, not reducing it.

And you have to look closely at why a given law failed in a given instance, not just throw one's hands up and say 'they don't work' That is gun lobby "cigarette science". That is their propaganda. They don't care if little children die as longs as the $$$ keep rolling in. So we need to be smarter than just to swallow those arguments hook line and sinker.

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah they should take Europe as a whole if they are going to take the US as a whole. Each state is about the size and population of a European country.

You have to be a bit smarter over all on this. There is a lot of propaganda out there, especially from the pro-gun lobbies. The bottom line is this: In Europe on any given year the median number of mass shootings in most countries is at or very close to 0. The US is at 146 so far this year alone. It's a fundamental failure of our culture and our laws.

[Sparko]

So now you are going to try to judge me for giving you the honest answer to your question?

Judge you? No, just pointing out an inconsistency in your logic. If you are trusting God to save you from a criminal bent on murdering you and your family, why not trust God to protect your children from mishandling a gun?

look at you - trying to pretend I should not feel the way because my children are grown. Well first of all I was telling you the decision I made when they were young. A decision I so far see no need to change. And this is so offensive to you - why? Are you so insecure in your believe you should have a gun that my decision not to makes you uneasy?

Ah this is where you try to turn it around and claim I am somehow attacking you?

It makes a great deal of difference given that I wasn't asking you about when your children were little but giving you a hypothetical regarding now.

I also grew up around guns. And that experience shaped my conclusion. Especially wrt children getting access to guns when they should not. Is the answer I would not choose to have a gun in my home because of the potential danger to my children from its presence now anathama and no longer a 'Christian' choice? Am I not allowed to factor into my decision a time when a child I knew got access to a gun that was normally locked up with almost disastrous results into my thinking? And who are you to judge that? I think you need to rethink your responses here.

I am not going to apologize for asking valid questions, Jim. If you think you can get all huffy and get me to back down, think again. So basically on one hand you have a very small chance that a child will get ahold of a gun and harm himself, which can be alleviated by training the kid on handling guns and making sure they are locked in a safe, and on the other hand you have a situation where if someone invades your home with a gun, which means he knows you are home and his goal is most likely to harm you since he could break in when you are not home if he just wants stuff. The likelihood of you or your family being shot in that situation is near 100% and you do not want to defend yourself or your family.

And as far as you 'growing up around guns', I seriously doubt it, or you were never taught about them and avoided them. Because on many occasions you have shown your ignorance regarding firearms on theologyweb.
.

You are being obtuse. You can't have heroin in your house because it is illegal and harmful to society. You can't have child porn in your house because it is illegal and harmful to society. When something is illegal to own, you can't have it in your house. Further, the discussion here is not about banning all guns, but rather putting limits on gun ownership with very severe limits (possiby a ban) on the subset of guns most likely to be used in mass shootings, the ones that make mass shootings particularly easy to carry out.

We are not talking about any of that which you do not have a right to have in the first place. You want to take away a constitutional right and you don't even know a thing about guns. And note the constitution doesn't even GIVE us the right to own guns, It merely acknowledges that we already have that right and limits the government from infringing on that right.

Now if you were on here opining about banning some legal prescription drug because some people abused it and you had absolutely no idea about drugs in general I would be making the same argument.

I didn't say any of these things were wrong, and really, it's pretty obvious in most cases they are not. So maybe you should think a little less shallowly about the point I was making.

Or maybe you should be more clear. Your words implied that defending yourself or others with a gun would be "returning evil for evil" - if you didn't mean that then why did you say it?

And in that war, we are told not to return evil for evil. And so that has to shape our responses to all of these issues. There is a paradox here. Does Jesus statement demand we let someone abuse another person? No. But if taken absolutely literally they would. So there is more to it than that - isn't there? And yet, at the same time, if we are going to change the world, we can't just live as the world does, returning evil for evil, seeking revenge, arbitrarily destroying what we perceive as a threat. We are not to be motivated by fear, but by love. We bring redemption and life, not destruction and judgement. And that is the filter through which all this has be run.

Sure, if someone killed your family member and you hunted them down for vengeance, THAT would be returning evil for evil. But not defending them with a gun in a life threatening situation. To do nothing when you could would be no better than the servant who did nothing with the talent he was given instead of investing it or using it.

And yet, a civilized society is not marked by all it's citizens packing. It's an absurdity to think that one would rather have everyone publicly armed in every venue that to have restrictions on gun ownership for the sake of public safety. It marks a fundamental and catastrophic failure of both Democracy and the respect for individual freedom if THAT is the only solution.

Nobody made any argument like that in the first place. You are burning a strawman.

We don't have 'plenty of laws'. In fact, the Gun lobbies and now even the Supreme court routinely push to or directly invalidate laws that ARE working, increasing the problem, not reducing it.

Yes we do have plenty of laws. It took me a couple of months and various background checks to even get my handgun license, and after that I had to complete another background check to purchase my handgun. And I will have to undergo more checks to buy any other guns I want. And there are red flag laws to report anyone who should not have a gun.

And you have to look closely at why a given law failed in a given instance, not just throw one's hands up and say 'they don't work' That is gun lobby "cigarette science". That is their propaganda. They don't care if little children die as longs as the $$$ keep rolling in. So we need to be smarter than just to swallow those arguments hook line and sinker.

Jim, no amount of laws will ever satisfy you because every time something "slips through the cracks" you and people like you will be screaming that we need more laws. If we had another assault rifle ban, then people would start using regular rifles. Then you would want to ban all semi-automatics. Then people would use shotguns, then you would want to ban shotguns. Then handguns, then knives, etc, etc.

[rogue06]

You know nothing about the intent. All you know is that the source data was compiled at different times. You don't know why it was compiled at different times, or why they chose the data they did. Compilations of that sort may not be done every year for every nation (here's a thought - maybe they just don't need to do it every year because the event is so rare?). So you need to know more about the data itself before you ascribe 'deception' as the motive.

Yeah, selecting a bunch of different dates just happened all by itself.

Are you interested in a good deal on a bridge in Brooklyn that I can get you?

[Sparko]

You have to be a bit smarter over all on this. There is a lot of propaganda out there, especially from the pro-gun lobbies. The bottom line is this: In Europe on any given year the median number of mass shootings in most countries is at or very close to 0. The US is at 146 so far this year alone. It's a fundamental failure of our culture and our laws.

You are right about one thing, there is a lot of propaganda out there. It's easy to massage and filter the data to get the chart that you want. Like removing all of the central and south american countries off the chart that have gun homicide rates many times higher than the US. Or including accidental and suicides in the data instead of actual murders.

[Mountain Man]

Did I say it was always evil to use such a weapon in self-defense?

I believe you have, or at the very least have strongly implied it.