In the news today , it seems "three young men walked into the New Gethsemane Church of God in Christ and opened fire, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Monday."
It used to be we were safe in America, without getting too hyperbolic about this.
Then you used to be safe--mostly--in your neighborhoods.
Then you were safe in your home.
Now you aren't even safe in your church.
Maybe these shooters learned this from the nutcase who went on shooting spree 5 years ago in suburban Milwaukee when the church member left the service, only to return with his 9mm handgun and unload 22 shots, killing the pastor, the pastor's son and five other members and then himself. "Neighbors said he was quiet and devout...", the story said.
Maybe they learned this tactic from this shooting from last year in March when "An Illinois pastor was shot and killed, and two parishioners injured after an unknown gunman opened fire during Sunday services at the First Baptist Church in Maryville, Ill."
Or maybe they learned the technique from "pro-lifer" Scott Roeder who assassinated Dr. George Tiller, gun to his temple, in Dr. Tiller's own church in downtown Wichita, Kansas last May 31 on what was otherwise, no doubt, a beautiful Sunday morning when Dr. Tiller was volunteering, as he repeatedly did, at his own church.
Could be.
And besides the insanity of shooting someone in their own church, there is the additional craziness of the 2 victims in this most recent shooting, yesterday, of not assisting the police in their search for the shooters.
So much for law and order.
Bring on the anarchy.
So let's have it, folks, bring it on. It really has become "God, guts and guns!" in America, hasn't it?
And in our own churches.
But that's what we need--more and more guns.
Can I get an "Amen!"?
The next line of thinking?
"That's why we need to make it okay to bring our guns to church ..."
"Thank you, Ms. Davis. Now, sit down and shut up."
Posts
Donald and Elon Pull Strings
27 minutes ago
25 comments:
You know, the recidivism rate of a dead armed criminal is exactly zero.
Spree shootings happen almost exclusively where guns are banned.
Some churches are pacifistic, others are eye for an eye, or protect the innocent at all costs. It should be completely up to the church whether and how guns are allowed. At minimum, the state should not make extra rules for a church beyond what they make for Walmart.
Should the actions of the Deacons for Defense and Justice have been illegal? In the 60's it was common for the KKK to do drive-by shootings in some areas--until return fire from the Deacons caused them to stop entirely.
There needs to be a clear distinction between offensive and defensive violence. I'm with you on eliminating offensive violence, but making decent people unable to fight back isn't going to be effective.
The recidivism rate of an unarmed, law-abiding citizen, left dead by a shooter's bullet is also zero, of course.
Good to hear from you guys.
MR
So you think the Deacons for Defense and Justice were wrong to shoot back at the KKK? We would all be better off if the Deacons didn't "escalate" the violence?
No, Sevesteen, I don't.
And I didn't suggest otherwise.
MR
The recidivism rate of an unarmed, law-abiding citizen, left dead by a shooter's bullet is also zero, of course.
Recidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior.
So to make a statement that somehow the unarmed citizen is repeating the undesired behavior is questionable. What was the law abiding individual doing that they have previously experieneced negative consequences?
Most of the time, guns aren't necessary in church. Most of the time guns aren't necessary period.
Most of the time fire extinguishers aren't necessary either.
Problem is, you aren't likely to get enough warning in the rare event you DO need one. It has been decades since I've needed a fire extinguisher--oddly, that time was at a church. I still keep one in my kitchen.
In the right hands, a gun is safe. I've seen a fire extinguisher used effectively as a weapon.
Should the Deacons have been allowed to defend with guns while in church?
Should other people? Where is the line?
Do you think that if the Deacons were disarmed in church that the KKK would have respected the sanctity?
I'm sorry if I'm coming across excessively harsh--that is an artifact of the slow round-trip communication time rather than intent.
let's leave it simply this way---you two are all for guns--and more guns.
I, on the other hand, am not.
Most of the time, even in America, guns aren't necessary, period. (To watch American TV and movies, you would think otherwise.)
There, done.
Thanks, sincerely,
MR
I don't want more guns necessarily, I want them allowed where they can do good. Where concealed carry laws are nondiscriminatory, the ratio typically winds up about right--Roughly 2% or so getting licenses, probably half carrying regularly. I don't think everyone should go armed.
When you arbitrarily ban guns in particular areas without taking other (usually expensive and impractical) precautions, you create zones of opportunity for evil people who won't obey anyhow.
And I get very frustrated with conversations like this one--From my point of view, it appears that when questions get difficult, the answer becomes "I don't want to talk about it anymore" rather than defending their position.
But It's your blog, you don't have an obligation to satisfy me. If you'd rather not talk to me at all, just let me know, I'll quit commenting.
No, it's not that the questions are getting difficult so the answer becomes "I don't want to talk about it anymore," truly.
My take on it is that you believe strongly in having guns available. I don't. I don't believe for one minute I can change your mind, that's what guides my reaction. I don't think any level of logic or even data will change that.
I will say that I think more education and more equitable treatment in our society of all our citizens, in all ways--in education, again, health care, taxes, everything--would reduce the need for someone to turn to guns.
I don't think you're going to believe in that but that's what I think, feel and believe. It works in Europe, Scandinavian countries and all over segments of the world, as my proof, of a sort.
There. I hope that's satisfying for you. (And I'm not mocking you).
MR
I find continued discussion for discussion's sake, when the "other side" has no intention of either being open-minded or of changing their mind to be tedious. That's the reason for my saying, look, that's what you believe and this is what I believe. I'll try to--always briefly--put up more data in the future if we're discussing but I won't, as I said, go on and on, just for the sake of the discussion, with no hope of ever reaching the other side.
That said, understand, I both read and consider your points of view but I don't think, short of some incredible and totally unknown new data showing otherwise, that you're going to change my mind. Less guns, violence, shootings and killings are what I think make sense at a gut level but from data, too.
But that's me.
Have a great day,
MR
Before I can even attempt to change your views, I'd need to know what they are, and I haven't figured that out.
The Deacons for Defense are OK, but Cynthia Davis proposing pretty much the same thing isn't? It appears very inconsistent to me, but maybe there's something I'm missing.
Gun crime is too complex a subject for there to be one simple answer--Neither "arm everyone" nor "Disarm everyone" is right. People favoring restrictions on availability tend to knee-jerk on licensed carry as being even more extreme than mere ownership. Licensed carry is a separate issue from gun availability, with entirely separate arguments on both sides of the issue.
In self-defense, in the 60's, the Deacons for Defense had no choice, clearly. That just made sense.
Offensively wearing a firearm to church now, as Ms. Davis is proposing--and that's really what she's proposing here--is insanity. As the book says, about living "by the sword" and dying "by the sword."
But you won't agree.
MR
I agree with this:
"Gun crime is too complex a subject for there to be one simple answer--Neither 'arm everyone' nor 'Disarm everyone' is right."
That said, the fewer guns, gun-nuts and less "cowboy culture" (a "shoot 'em up" mentality), the better.
Please provide examples of your so called shoot em up cowboy mentality you seem to believe there exists in this nation.
Also, Would or wouldn't you agree that we as humans, have a right to defend our lives? and the lives of our loved ones?
Any law that would stop Cynthia would also stop the Deacons. Many of our original gun control laws were written specifically to control people like the Deacons, people who thought Blacks should have the same rights as everyone else.
My definition of "living by the gun" is using the gun to impose your will on others--In other words, criminals. Based on that definition, I agree that those who live by the gun are likely to die by the gun--my only hope is that they do not take innocent people with them.
The "shoot em up cowboy" is mixing criminal culture with gun culture. The gun culture I am part of wants no part of criminals or criminal behavior, and does not believe in initiating violence. We do however believe in responding to violence with effective defense, violent if need be.
examples of "shoot 'em up" mentality:
--Scott Roeder
--anyone who does a "drive by"
--the nutcases who take their guns--frequently semi-automatics--and start shooting up their work places, former work places, schools (Columbine, etc.)
There are so many examples of this mentality in America, the list could be a long one and it's almost solely an American trait and problem.
Yes, to an extent, of course, we have the "right" to defend ourselves. What is the problem and what we don't have a right to do is to use them offensively, as is too often done in America, unfortunately, partly due to the wide and deep prevalence of guns and this same "cowboy" and/or "shoot 'em up" mentality.
MR
Did Scott Roeder have a carry license?
How many license holders are caught doing drive by shootings?
How many license holders take their guns to work and shoot their co-workers? (compare to how many people Jeanne Assam alone saved)
I'm not arguing here about availability. I'm arguing that as long as we HAVE availability, it doesn't make sense to put restrictions on carry that only affect the licensed, who are 5 to 10 times less likely to commit violent crime than the average American.
We need to screen and register all purchases of all firearms, in an attempt to keep them out of the hands of criminals, felons and the insane.
MR
You keep changing the subject from arbitrary partial restrictions on licensed carry to availability. I don't spend much time arguing against availability. There are people who shouldn't be allowed guns.
The people who would be allowed to take their guns to church are licensed and have been screened, and they already have guns. If nothing else, it slightly mitigates the problems of crazies and felons getting guns.
How does keeping someone with a license out of church keep a crazy from getting a gun?
you keep expressing frustration that I don't go down the same path you want to walk.
the fact is, registration or a license isn't going to reduce all problems, no. I recognize that. but when gun shows don't have to require registration or licensing, you have a loophole you can drive a truck through for felons, criminals, the insane, etc.
I don't see what gunshows have to do with licensed people carrying legallly in those churches that are willing to allow it. I'm trying to focus on the subject of your original post, it is you who keeps going off on a different track.
gunshows have everything to do with the fact that they aren't required to register the purchaser or do a background check.
I already agreed that no system is going to keep all people from doing things like Scott Roeder or the Columbine asshat kids did, no. No system will. But we have to pursue some better way of pursuing sanity and fewer murders, shootings, etc., so we can maintain an inelligent, working, functioning society.
There is no quick, easy fix and I don't pretend there is. That said, making all kinds of guns available--particularly automatic or semi-automatic weapons, for one--makes all of our situations worse.
There is no quick, easy fix and I don't pretend there is. That said, making all kinds of guns available--particularly automatic or semi-automatic weapons, for one--makes all of our situations worse.
With your previous statement that the .38 should be banned, you are calling for the ban of probably 95% of all existing handguns--The vast majority of handguns that are NOT semiautomatic fire the .38.
Since you appear to be unwilling or unable to defend your gut feeling that people with licenses and background checks should have extra restrictions in church, regardless of what the church wants, I'll drop this unless you do try to address that.
I stand by that--the continued manufacturer of the "Saturday night special" is a good, strong idea for the country.
I didn't say "that people with licenses and background checks should have extra restrictions in church, regardless of what the church wants." What I did say is that the current restrictions should stay in place because, again, we don't need more guns in more places like churches and national parks, etc. More guns leads to more people being shot.
Guns don't kill peopole.
People with guns kill people.
And the more guns, the more shootings and killings there will be.
Dropped.
Thank you.
Now, go out and have a great weekend,
MR
Thank you.
Post a Comment