Russell Moore, “I think gun control proponents are misguided in trying to persuade others of their position in the way they usually go about it,” Moore wrote in an email. “There are not two sides here about whether shootings should be stopped, laws enforced, and criminality punished, but rather two sides about whether gun control is a prudent way to carry out those common goals.” Source.
Russell Moore: “We live in a fallen world where things are not as they are supposed to be. I turn directly to the cross to show that God is not distant from this evil. He took that upon himself. Jesus also said this is the kind of world you’re in now. The spirit causes us to groan at the world around us.” Source.
Tommy Green, executive director of the Florida Baptist Convention, stated, “We ask that our Southern Baptist family join us in specific prayer this Sunday for those impacted by this horrific event. Our prayer is for God to grant comfort, mercy, and peace to these families.”
People Sick Of ‘Thoughts And Prayers’ Demand Action After Florida School Shooting. Warning, some foul language in the article.
J. D. Greear, (from Baptist Press): Among themes Greear would emphasize as SBC president, he wrote, are “the Gospel above all” as the convention’s source of unity; “cultural and racial diversity”; “intentional, personal evangelism”; “church planting”; and “engagement of the next generation in cooperative giving and mission.”
Ken Hemphill: “I think there has been an erosion of how local churches, associations, state conventions, and the national convention really function together in every dimension of the Great Commission,” Hemphill said in an interview.
David Platt, I have come to the realization that it is not viable long-term for me to lead as president of the IMB while serving as teaching pastor in a church.
Bobbi Ashford, IMB trustee and mother of SEBTS Provost Bruce Ashford, said, “David Platt’s wise and prayerful leadership has brought us safely through some challenging years, and I am grateful that he will remain in his role as IMB President at this time. May Southern Baptists to be devoted to prayer as a search committee is formed to begin the process of searching for David’s future replacement.”
Platt sought to implement his vision of a new IMB, but his short tenure means we will never know if that vision was going to succeed, wrote Dave Miller
David Platt, as reported: “trustee leaders have communicated a desire” [for me] “to serve with the IMB in the future in some capacity.” Platt indicated willingness to do that “if the Lord so leads.”
William, thank you for highlighting this quote, “I have come to the realization that it is not viable long-term for me to lead as president of the IMB while serving as teaching pastor in a church.”
Last fall people shared this sentiment when this arrangement was announced. They were summarily dismissed as “haters” and it was shared how little time it takes be a teaching pastor. From this quote, it seems the logical conclusion is the concerned were correct and unless the board of trustees saw this arrangement as temporary they made the wrong call this time.
I disagree that the “wrong call” was made a few months ago. Platt and the trustees discussed the matter and it was decided to let a few months pass and then both would revisit the matter. During that time a lengthy Q & A was put up to inform those who were interested and DP, his family, IMB workers, trustees, and interested Southern Baptists all took time to mull the matter with the outcome being the DP would leave. If all SBC entities handled their issues and problems in this way, we would save a lot of grief and rancor.
There are harsh, judgmental critics on all sides.
Good leadership not only requires giving something a chance to see if it will work out but also the courage to declare something a bad idea or not feasible. I hope our trustees don’t develop a “let’s run it up the flagpole and see what happens” mentality as their default position.
Dean, I felt it was a bad idea at the time and I am glad it will not continue much longer. There certainly are “haters,” but opposing this back during the fall does not make one a hater.
Adam, I was not as sharp as you in October. If you can trace my comments you will find I supported Dr. Platt going to McLain because I believe teaching and preaching is what he does best. I was wrong. I no longer feel if was a good decision.
My thoughts:
Russell Moore – spot on. This is where the SBC stands. I wonder if some of the younger, more urban folks in the SBC would desire that the SBC become more interested in and vocal about “gun control.” I would be interested if any of them would chime in here.
Tommy Green – spot on. A pastor’s heart to those involved.
People sick of this and that. Same people. Same stuff they said last time. Same stuff they will say in the future. We can always legislate around the edges of this – e.g. bump stocks, raising the limit of AR-15 ownership to 21, etc. But these well intentioned actions are not going to make the difference. We have a hate problem in this culture. And because we are free and well off, technology that can kill lots of people is available to all of us – including the hateful and the unstable. We can do lots of things to try and prevent this – better security, better reporting to law enforcement, better follow up by law enforcement, doing what we can to limit technology in reasonable ways that doesn’t infringe on everyone else.
J.D. Greear – all good stuff. Details matter, however. Some pressing on that would be good.
Ken Hemphill – he’s exactly right. There has been erosion. But to me that seems to be born of cultural and methodological developments that can’t be reversed. It’s just a new day, and we can’t turn the clock back. We can keep the discussion going and encourage cooperation, however.
David Platt and all things related. Great idea to take a young guy who connects with the next generation and put him in charge of the IMB. But it didn’t work. Platt is a young man with a prophet’s gift and the curse of youth – interested in everything. But we sure could have done worse than trying Platt out. A person in our church who has served on the foreign field suggested a name to me yesterday – and I can’t remember the name! He is a guy who spent a career at the IMB, has a white hot passion for missions, and can administrate. He knows where are the issues are at the IMB. That’s the kind of guy we need.
Remember this mantra for IMB leadership at this point – “Demonstrated competence first.”
You guys can borrow that.
The first quality is demonstrated competence in the field where he will be working.
If we go for anything else first – the candidate’s competence will be a secondary consideration.
We’ll pick someone for some other reason, and then hope his style, wit, personality, and popularity, will make up for the lack of competence.
Louis, thanks for the comment. I think Tommy Green’s comment was fitting and appropriate to the tragedy. What struck me were the multiple, hostile responses to the simple Christian ‘thoughts and prayers’.
Dean, come on man. Your ‘flagpole’ line was dismissive. No reason not to think that all parties involved had a genuine desire for a positive outcome. Maybe you haven’t lived through enough SBC entity meltdowns and trustee mishandling. This was handled quite well.
No William, I have complete confidence in our trustees and our trustee system. I believe they sought the best most positive outcome but that doesn’t mean they obtained the best outcome. My flagpole comment is not dismissive in any way. That is the strategy you applauded. I just happen to believe that is not a great leadership strategy in all situations. To allow Dr. Platt 5 months to figure out if he wants to remain president of IMB is not good leadership and quite frankly this is the probably the single entity whose trustees would allow such a move.
If living through as much as you have “old great one” means I can’t recognize something that ended up an unmitigated disaster then I pray I keep my naivety.
You’re half right: I am an “old” one.
Hindsight is a great thing. Your’s is pretty good. I developed mine years ago.
Water under the bridge…We can move along and work together towards a fruitful future for IMB.
“responses to the simple Christian ‘thoughts and prayers’.
I understand the response. In light of the horribleness of this situation, these were not necessarily haters, but grievers. And it does seem trite in the fact that Evangelicals got Trump in office and are so anti-gun control. I totally understand and think they were just being honest and showing their pain. That’s more than most Evangelicals have been of late.
William:
The hostility to “thoughts and prayers” is a hostility to things that comfort but do not “solve” the problem.
Most of these folks are committed to a utopian vision of the future – one without violence. And part of that involves removing guns from society, as they see that as the cause of the violence.
Anyone who stands in the way of a person who sees themselves as ushering in a future without violence is, to them, a form of evil. Thus, the particularly hateful comments.
I don’t believe it is a utopia vision. Is that the reason why the response from Evangelicals? Thinking that this type of violence is just going to be here. That is wrong thinking. Borderline insanity thinking in my opinion.
Do you believe this act and others like it were evil? Evil finds a way, regardless of the law, and only One will end it
Jeff P: Let’s look at this practically. Of course I believe this act was evil, beyond evil, but acts like this can be combatted. Canada for example has a pretty good record of this not happening. Tougher gun laws can stop this from happening. We can fight to keep this from happening. If you think we are helpless to do so, and resign yourself to the baseless fact that evil is out there regardless, that is not true.
We have combatted evil, at least it’s better now. Look at history to now. We as Christians especially, but as people in general can change things. It’s a zealot in end times who believes this not to be so.
I think it’s ridiculous to decry praying for folks. But I understand also the idea that says that we should do whatever we can do to prevent these things from happening in the future. One major problem that I am seeing is that we disagree as a nation as to what we should do.
I support metal detectors and armed deputies at every school. Others want more stringent gun laws, which I think ought to be on the table. But, the real problem is that neither side of the political spectrum will compromise one bit on this issue. Neither side really cares about kids as much as they care about their own political agenda.
Jeff P, I hate to snarky, but do you really believe this? Do you believe this about abortion? Why try to change the law about abortion, regardless of the law, there will be abortions.
And Louis, don’t all Believers trust that an “utopian vision of the future – one without violence” is coming. Yes, it will only come with the return of Jesus, but aren’t we called to Kingdom values now? Doesn’t Jesus call us to be peacemakers?
And no, the majority of people calling for stronger gun laws are NOT calling to outlaw all guns. The second amendment, as interpreted by this Supreme Court, makes clear that citizens have the right to own guns. But this doesn’t mean that the right to own guns cannot be limited. Right now it is illegal to own a machine gun, as well as automatic rifles. Placing limits on other guns could well limit violence in our society.
Remember that the right to speech, religion, and the press (the first amendment) are all limited as we cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, nor can Muslims have four wives, nor can the press libel people.
SFG: You actually said it better than I.
I think your analogy is askew. Abortion is something that was read in to the constitution by a court that didn’t uphold it. The right to bear arms is clearly in the constitution.
Now, if you’re talking about banning non-automatic rifles in addition to automatic ones, what comes next? I’m not against sensible legislation, maybe adjusting the legal age to purchase a weapon, a tougher background check. I’m even not against registration. I don’t even own a gun. But evil always finds a way. 29 people were killed by a guy with a knife in China just recently. The worst mass shooting in the last 20 years was in Sweden, a country with some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet. Look at Chicago, DC, Baltimore, all have extremely tough gun laws. Yet annually lead the nation in gun deaths.
These type rifles may be outlawed. Do you believe that stops mass killings? That’s what I’m saying. Clearly outlawing a gun won’t. The gun was a tool, and their are many others, used by evil people. We’re called to speak truth to a world in darkness. There is only one answer for evil. We may be hated by the World for speaking that truth, but then, Jesus told us We’d better expect that.
Same for abortion, it’s an act of evil. A legal one right now. Gun murder is illegal, yet that law isn’t stopping people from gunning each other down. Outlawing AK’s won’t stop evil from being evil. It’s a bandaid on a chest wound
The gun control debate is unnecessary. Banning the AR-15, which is what is being called for along with other firearm restrictions, will not stop this from happening. At all. Better, IMO, are suggestions like these 7 steps. https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2018/02/18/how-to-eliminate-school-shootings-overnight-n2450380
The author of the article says, “Israel has already put some of these steps into practice and the nation has seen almost zero school attacks since adopting them.”
What the author DOESN’T say is that Israel requires civilians to obtain a firearms licence to lawfully acquire, possess, sell or transfer firearms and ammunition, and it is a long and comprehensive process.
Among the requirements are a background check (criminal, health, and mental history), and pass a weapons-training course. Around 40% of applications for firearms permits are rejected.
Those holding firearms licenses must renew them and pass a shooting course every three years, and undergo psychological assessment at least once every six years.
I’m good with everything from that article except number 6. I’m all for people being able to defend themselves or their family, but it is not their responsibility to provide armed resistance for others. No matter how good a civilian is with a pistol, they are simply not trained to defend others with a gun in a high pressure situation. It is not their job, nor should it be.
SFG, yes, he says “Israel has already put some of these steps into practice…”
Operative word is “some.”
Bill Mac, the key words for #6 are,
“armed, certified, and properly trained.” I know a local pastor who has been in ongoing tactical training on the side for several years now. Trust me when I say you and I would want him with a gun defending against any of the school shooters we have seen over the years. It would be no contest. So ongoing training would be a must.
Debbie,
Not saying we should or should not passed another gun laws but according to the Canadian National Post:
“4 days ago · Virtually every gun used in an American mass shooting is legally available for purchase in Canada. Despite this, Canada doesn’t come close to suffering the same …”
Thus it seems it is more than the availability of certain firearms that lead to these mass shootings in the USA.
The same guns are available in Canada but they do not have the same murderous evil deeds as in the USA.
This is what is so frustrating about this debate and the reason I disagree with Moore’s quote. One side wants to make changes in existing gun control laws. The other side insists nothing works and nothing be done.
So fine, you can buy an assault rifle in Canada. Great don’t ban them then, but what do they do? There is much more screening and training and magazines are limited to five rounds. So, we can do something more than thoughts and prayers and we don’t have to touch the second amendment.
In Canada you must have and carry a license to have guns AND to buy ammunition. You must apply to the RCMP (the Federal police, think of the FBI), take a standardized Firearm Safety Course and undergo security screening which includes background checks and reference interviews. All applicants are screened, and a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants, but final approval time may be longer.
Licenses must be renewed every five years.
Magazines are limited to five rounds for rifles and 10 rounds for hand guns.
And Canada’s gun violence is much lower than the the USA.
There is nothing in the second amendment that would stop the USA from having laws similar to Canada.
For us, since these type guns have been available going back decades and decades, shouldn’t the more pertinent question be why these type shooting have so greatly increased the last 25 years? Sure, you had a few isolated instances like Austin, TX. But this is a modern phenomenon. These type guns have been there far predating this era of mass shootings. What’s changed?Access to guns hasn’t. America has always been a heavily armed nation
Strider,
“There is much more screening and training and magazines are limited to five rounds. So, we can do something more than thoughts and prayers and we don’t have to touch the second amendment.”
I suppose you are suggesting we could also limit mags to 5 rounds. Well I and many others like to sport shoot with larger rounds. Why should we be limited? So the would be perps could only have 5 round mags available to them? If that is what you are suggesting, seriously? So would be school shooters would abide by that rule? They wouldn’t buy 30 round mags underground illegally? Or perhaps the government could confiscate all the mags larger than 5 from all us law abiding citizens. Well that would be a disaster. I don’t think we want the government trying to take all those back from law abiding gun owners.
Les: I don’t know but it’s working quite well in Canada. I can’t argue with results.
Debbie, “it’s working quite well in Canada”
I say for those US citizens who desire that way of life and those kinds of restrictions, head north. Move to Canada. For the US, though, there are much more common sense ideas to try…as in the link I posted. Makes so much sense.
Hey, when I attend a Cardinals game here in St. Louis, ya know what we have to do? Yep, walk thru metal sectors and have any bags searched. For a baseball game. But for our kids in school? They’re largely on their own in those gun free zones.
“The same guns are available in Canada but they do not have the same murderous evil deeds as in the USA.”
Yes Mike, that is what I understand too. Yet as noted they do not have the murderous evil deeds as in the USA. That is something to look in to in my opinion.
Listen, I hate guns, I would love to see them gone, but that is just not possible because of the 2nd Amendment and that is just me. I think we should look into all possible ways that deter crime and yet both sides are happy.
Debbie, would you be OK with armed guards and locked doors at every school? Let me give you an example. I volunteer at a local elementary school. I walk through the front door unchecked. If I didn’t voluntarily check in at the church office I could walk 100 feet straight in to the library and do all the damage I desired to. There is nothing stopping me, other than me. I could do it with a knife, a baseball bat, a handgun, my bare hands. Armed guards and locked doors don’t stop Vegas or Orlando, but they quite possibly do stop this
What can we do about mass shootings?
Improve family life. An intact family, dad, mom, kids, makes a big difference. The government should not in any way penalize, but rather encourage intact families. Kids with intact families commit way less crime.
Be more concerned with, and alert to, mental health issues.
FBI should spend more time on this issue and less time wiretapping Republicans. Government agencies have dropped the ball more than once when it comes to mass shootings.
Allow school teachers, staff, to get a concealed gun carry permit and allow them to conceal carry on the school campus. No, it does not put you on the same level as an active shooter with a rifle, but it at least gives you a fighting chance.
The coach who died protecting his students, might have been able to do more where he allowed to carry a gun.
I’m a big believer in good guys having guns. I support the NRA.
I have no problem, however, with better background checks and dealing with bump stocks.
David R. Brumbelow
Strider:
I did not read Moore’s statement that way.
He said “gun control proponents are usually misguided in the way they usually go about trying to persuade people.
He did not say there was nothing that could be done.
While we’re thinking and debating various proposals relating to gun control, schools can be secured simply.
Assign 3 armed officers to each school.
Easily done. We won’t be wondering if this will have an impact etc. it’s non-controversial.
Yes Louis. And a few other things as well. And the assigned officers? Plainclothes. Have them blessed in with the other school teachers and admins and be like the sky marshals. No one will know who to take out first. And, make it known all over. Signs, etc. Like,
“This school is protected by an undisclosed number of armed, undercover, and tactically trained law enforcement officers. Attempts to harm students and/or school officials will be swiftly met with deadly force that you will not see coming.”
I am more in favor of this than arming and deputizing civilians. Although I doubt they would stay incognito for very long, which may not be a big deal.
Well, “Have them blessed in with” is a nice idea too. Should read, “Have them BLEND in with…”
I just read this article. If you are in favor of this then that’s tougher than Canadian laws! I would love to support these measures as i am sure most Americans would. I doubt our current Congress has the courage to do anything though.
Strider,
“ just read this article. If you are in favor of this then that’s tougher than Canadian laws!”
That article at The Hill…those ARE law now and have been.
I also want to go on the record as “for” these gun control laws.
http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/359363-What-if-there-were-serious-gun-controls%3F
So if I don’t like having my kids shot up in school I can just go to Canada because heaven forbid Les would have to reload more often.
And so goes the gun non-debate!
I will say this though, it’s a pretty big logical fallacy to argue that we need more guns on the one hand while simultaneously arguing that humans are evil and we won’t change that on the other hand.
Oh, and I should also point out that Republicans want to focus on this being a mental health issue but they just slashed mental health funding.
Strider,
“So if I don’t like having my kids shot up in school I can just go to Canada because heaven forbid Les would have to reload more often.”
Which part of what I said or linked to do you disagree with? This?
“And the assigned officers? Plainclothes. Have them blessed in with the other school teachers and admins and be like the sky marshals. No one will know who to take out first. And, make it known all over. Signs, etc. Like,
“This school is protected by an undisclosed number of armed, undercover, and tactically trained law enforcement officers. Attempts to harm students and/or school officials will be swiftly met with deadly force that you will not see coming.””
Hey Les, the conversation has moved on and I have been out and about. But, to answer your questions the laws mentioned in the The Hill article are not current law and are not enforced anywhere. Some of those ideas are new- like forbidding arms being sold to those convicted of domestic violence. But most of the ideas are been passed- like the gun laws of 1968 act and then have had years to be undermined until they have no enforceable aspects at all. For instance background checks are already very weak and they are further undermined by the gun shows. The gun lobby has made sure that they can keep selling as many guns as possible and they are very good at it.
As for your suggestion of armed guards at schools it is bound to be of some help. But of course, several schools that have had horrific shootings had armed guards at the time and it didn’t help as much as we would have hoped. My bottom line: more guns means more gun crime. The pro-gun lobby wants it both ways, people are evil and cannot be stopped by laws and we should have more guns. This argument is insane to me. The proof is there to see all around the world. Countries that have significant gun control do not have school shootings, Britain, Canada, Australia have all enacted tough gun control and seen their school shooting numbers go to zero. We have more guns than ever before and we have more gun violence than ever before. I don’t believe that America will pass any significant gun legislation and I further believe that our children will continue to be slaughtered at a regular rate. If you want more guns, open carry, and freedom to have all the guns you want go to El Salvador and Afghanistan. They have freedom from everything except fear.
Strider,
On July 6, 2016, you posted an article here on SBC Voices declaring that if we are to have revival in our land we must give up our guns. The title of the post was “The Road to Revival in Our Land.” Your fourth point was “Give up your guns.” if my memory serves me right.
You were wrong in the article about firearms and revival and you are wrong here about firearms and school violence here in this comment thread. You simply do not know that of which you speak, in my opinion.
I believe, as do many other reasonable and knowledgeable people who support the 2ed Amendment, that there is a way to maintain the 2ed Amendment in this nation (and rightfully so) and do what is necessary to protect school children better than we do. (There is no such thing as absolute security, but we certainly can do much better than we are doing in this nation.)
There have been two groups of extremists in this nation who always hinder any progress in this needful discussion.
1). The extremists who demand their rights to have firearms without any control/restrictions whatsoever.
2). The extremists, such as yourself, who demand the removal of any and all civilian firearms ownership, saying such things as, “I would not use a firearm to defend my own family,” as, if I am not mistaken, you stated in your July 6, 2016 post here on Voices.
Both extremes are wrong and, I contend without biblical foundation supporting either.
It is an absolute fact that we, who live in America, must take some strong and needful action to protect schools, but your way will never, ever work.
Frankly, your position is as absurd as is the position of the the backwoods, ridge-running Redneck who constantly cries, “The only way you will get my guns is to pry them from my cold, dead hands.” Both positions are absurd and foolish and equally hinder rational people from getting anything done to protect children in this nation.
Strider, as CB says so well, you are wrong. I’ll just point out one easy one:
“GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)
The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”” https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1117-restrictions-possession-firearms-individuals-convicted
Get your facts straight for one thing. For another, I suggest that if you want less guns and other countries are so good at this, that it is you, not I, who should move.
Oh and on places where there are severe restrictions on possessing guns and it’s relation to gun violence? I have one word for ya: Chicago.
Les,
I think it is a mistake for people to make comparisons between the United States and other nations such as Australia, Japan, Britain, Canada and various other developed nations when considering issues such as firearms ownership and most any other social interaction. The United States is unique to any other nation in the history of earth.
I contend that we need to focus on how we as a nation should deal with random violence such as school shootings, church shootings, and domestic violence.
What do you think?
CB, “I think it is a mistake for people to make comparisons between the United States and other nations such as Australia, Japan, Britain, Canada…”
I agree. I just used it back on him. If they are such panacea answers and such utopias re guns, he should move there and leave our constitution alone. I really don’t understand why people cannot see that the gun is not the problem. I own a ton of guns. How many places have I shot up? Zero.
The AR-15 compares virtually exactly with the Ruger Mini 14 in shooting action. Of course both are semi-auto. The only real difference is in appearance. The Ruger Mini 14 is often called a “farm rifle.” The AR-15 looks menacing. That’s why people who don’t know what they’re talking about say dumb things like “Let’s ban all assault rifles.”
In addition, I have pistols that have 17 round mags. Someone with even a decent shooting ability can do just as much damage with one of those pistols as they can with a so called assault rifle. And much easier to carry in.
I’ll let Strider clarify his position if he needs to, but the way I took his earlier article is that there is an atmosphere of gun idolatry in the US that doesn’t seem to be present anywhere else. I personally think the NRA helps foster this.
I don’t have easy answers, I doubt anyone does, but I have a problem with the solution to evil people with guns is simply more guns so we can kill them when they pop up. I’m not for confiscating everyone’s guns, but I’d say we have plenty of guns in the US. We aren’t in a shortage.
Bill Mac, “but I have a problem with the solution to evil people with guns is simply more guns so we can kill them when they pop up.”
I am talking about protecting the softest of targets…schools. My first suggestion seems east enough. Provide multiple well trained and armed security personnel at each school. I’m willing to pay more taxes for it. Have them be like sky Marshalls. Blending in as if they are part of the school staff. Post signs everywhere that say something like, “This school is protected by an undisclosed number of armed, undercover, and tactically trained law enforcement officers. Attempts to harm students and/or school officials will be swiftly met with deadly force that you will not see coming.” This seems to be a no brainer.
Perhaps, also allow those school staff who want to get the training to conceal and carry. Don’t identify them to students.
Have metal detectors and bag searches like I have to encounter to enter Busch Stadium to see the Cardinals play baseball.
And if a person still is hell bent on coming into the school to do harm, he will be much more likely to not get far. This all seems like a no brainer. But trying to ban AR-15s and high count mags, while maybe making some people feel good, will not accomplish one, single thing except limit their use by people who will inevitably obey the law. Law breakers will by definition pay the law zero attention.
Like I said elsewhere, armed security, incognito or not, is a good idea. I don’t think arming teachers is. It’s not their job.
Any gun can be used to kill, but I don’t have a problem at all making it extremely difficult for people to obtain firearms that are arguably primarily weapons of war. This is a democracy and I think if this was put to voters, guns like the AR-15 would be banned or made very difficult to obtain. Sometimes, the majority ought to rule. Lawmakers ought to listen to their constituents, not just the NRA moneylenders.
Bill Mac,
“Any gun can be used to kill, but I don’t have a problem at all making it extremely difficult for people to obtain firearms that are arguably primarily weapons of war. This is a democracy and I think if this was put to voters, guns like the AR-15 would be banned or made very difficult to obtain”
The AR-15 is not necessarily a weapon primarily a weapon of war. As I said above, it functions like the so called “farm rifle” Ruger Mini 14. Just LOOKS menacing. As we discovered in the now expired assault weapons ban, a) it arguable did no good. and b) it caught up in it’s net rifles like the Ruger Mini 14 farm rifle. These are all semi autos and are distinguished by primarily by their look.
This is not really a democracy anyway. We are a constitutional republic. The will of the people is trumped (no pun intended) by the constitution. Setting aside the fact that baby killing is erroneously deemed constitutional, if it were put to a vote, a majority in 2018 would be in favor of legalized baby killing. We don’t want to go there–to majority rules government.
And last, banning the AR-15 would not make them unavailable to criminals. That’s fantasy.
The 2nd amendment does not guarantee us the right to own any firearm we choose.
And haven’t the last few mass shootings been done with legally purchased firearms? If my right to a 30 round magazine being taken away results in 1 less dead student, I’ll bear up under the tyranny.
Remember how bump stocks were going to be banned following Las Vegas? See how quickly we forgot about that?
If you think politicians are standing up for the constitution, I think you are being naive. They are standing up for the NRA.
Bill Mac,
“The 2nd amendment does not guarantee us the right to own any firearm we choose.” Correct.
“And haven’t the last few mass shootings been done with legally purchased firearms?” Yes I believe that is correct. But laws and procedures were ignored and missed.
“If my right to a 30 round magazine being taken away results in 1 less dead student, I’ll bear up under the tyranny.” But banning them would not make them unavailable. Black market. Banning any gun will not make them unavailable. cf Chicago.
“Remember how bump stocks were going to be banned following Las Vegas?” I’m fine with banning bump stocks. I don’t think it will really do anything though. They can be made in one’s garage. Besides, it’s already illegal to modify a semi auto gun to make it into an auto firearm. How well did the LV shooter do in abiding with that law? Not so much.
“If you think politicians are standing up for the constitution, I think you are being naive.” I don’t know if and how many are standing up for the constitution or just catering to the NRA (who BTW advocated the bump stock ban). But their motives are neither here nor there. The constitution is what it is in our constitutional republic and advocating for majority rule that could violate the constitution is a terrible idea.
Les: I am suggesting that if the weapons of mass shootings are legally obtained, then making it more difficult to legally obtain them might result in less bloodshed. Mass shooters are not always associated with black market crime lords.
Of course, banning them won’t make them completely unavailable. I could no doubt find live hand grenades if I was determined. But the fact that it is difficult to obtain them might dissuade me from using that particular weapon even if I was intent on mayhem. If I couldn’t find 30 round magazines easily, I might settle for 10 or 15. Fewer rounds might easily result in fewer casualties. Baby steps.
Bill Mac, I really do get what you are getting at. I have no doubt that your motives are for safety.
“I am suggesting that if the weapons of mass shootings are legally obtained, then making it more difficult to legally obtain them might result in less bloodshed. Mass shooters are not always associated with black market crime lords.”
But you do realize that, for example, my Tristar T100 9mm semi-automatic pistol comes with two 15 round mags and fires the same way as an AR-15 and can kill exactly the same way. Trigger pull is the same. Still have to aim to shoot someone. I could argue that it would be better for the shooter to use a pistol like that rather than an AR-15 since it would be easily concealed and fires the same way. Have multiple mags. It could easily be a weapon of mass shootings. Should those kinds of pistols be banned as well as AR-15s?
Look, I am all for background checks and am for doing them well, much better than they apparently are done. I’m all for the FBI doing their job, as they apparently did not do this time. Fact is, if the local police/sheriff department and the FBI had just done their job in FL this shooting would never have happened.
The last time I suggested on here that it is easier to shoot a rifle accurately than shooting a pistol accurately, I had my head torn off (virtually speaking) by people who are apparently Wyatt Earp reincarnated. It didn’t even seem like a controversial statement. There’s a reason sharpshooters use rifles and not pistols. Anyway, I see the tradeoff. Something you can hide vs something you can shoot and kill more accurately. I think we’re talking about different kinds of criminals. Gangs, or store robbers or muggers are going to want something portable and concealable. Right now it seems that someone who simply wants to glory in killing is going to opt for an assault type rifle.
I know, as someone who has shot both types of firearms, I would much rather take my chances with someone wielding a pistol than someone with a rifle.
Bill Mac, rifle v pistol and accuracy has many variables such as the ability of the shooter, the gun, the sights, etc. It is interesting to note that LEOs don’t walk around with long guns normally.And sharpshooters use rifles because they are at long distances and they use scopes. That’s not really relevant in school shootings.
In any case, it may be that for these types of wackos, they want to look and do actually feel like some kind warrior and so use a firearm that comes across that way. I don’t know.
Another thing I don’t know is how many people in all these shootings were shot at some sort of “long” distance v close up. I do know from testimonials from past school shootings that survivors described the shooter as walking around generally unimpeded and walking up to people who were cowering under desks etc. and almost point blank shooting people. Not much aim needed. I would agree that if the shooter thinks he will be shooting at 25 or more feet he would opt for a rifle like an AR-15 or that Ruger “farm rifle.” Both would work the same.
“My first suggestion seems east enough” should be “My first suggestion seems easy enough.”
I still stand by the article I wrote. You guys can gloat about how right you are when we can go a year without another mass shooting.
Strider,
You: “the laws mentioned in the The Hill article are not current law and are not enforced anywhere.”
Me: I posted where it is law.
You: “I still stand by the article I wrote.”
Me now: By all means don’t let facts deter you.
Here is a link to your original article – I’m sympathetic to your original premise but you were making a missiological point rather than a political one and weren’t really speaking about the gun control debate or school shootings at all. Not sure how Christians laying down their guns solves the school shooting problem.
https://sbcvoices.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=30477&action=edit
Strider, when you said you stand by your original article I thought you were referring to your comments a little earlier here. I didn’t realize you were referring to what Todd just linked to.
Strider,
No one, at least I am not, and I seriously doubt Les is either, “gloating” about anything pertaining to school shootings or any recent or past mass murder in this nation.
The “high road” of Christian virtue you always try to present here about firearms is truly a pseudo-high road at best.
As to whether we go another year or not without a mass shooting is completely unknown. Sadly, if nothing is done to better secure schools in this nation, another may well occur. However, one thing is certain. The measures you would take to stop school shootings and mass murders in this nation will never stop a person determined and capable of executing such a horrible thing.
I agree totally CB. Thank your for your clarity.
Strider, in your original article you said, “I will not take up a weapon to protect my things or myself.”
I get that you have made that decision for yourself. Would you not take up arms to protect children from a killer?