Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

President Nelson on Gun Control


pogi

Recommended Posts

Rockpond started a now closed thread about President Nelson's remarks to youth in Vegas, here was the OP

Quote

President Nelson spoke on Saturday (17-Feb-2018) to young adults in Las Vegas.  Some of his remarks are generating a lot of social media feedback but what little is provided in the Mormon Newsroom report (linked below) doesn't really provide a lot of context.  Opening this thread in the hope that when the full transcript is published, assuming it is published, someone will post it here.

I don't think it ever got mentioned in that thread, but the remarks that are generating attention in the media are these:

Quote

Video posted on YouTube shows a portion of President Russell M. Nelson’s remarks on February 17,  in which he says that God gave humanity free agency, and that free agency has been used to pass laws that let people who should not have guns obtain them.

Nelson says in part:

Quote

“I know your hearts are heavy as is mine as we contemplate those ruthless killings in Florida this last week. I think of Alaina Petty, 14-year-old Latter-day Saint, her life snuffed out by that sniper’s bullet…. you and others to say, ‘how could God allow things like that to happen?’ Well, God allows us to have our agency, and men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.”

Quote

A spokesman for the LDS Church said the quote speaks for itself.

http://fox13now.com/2018/02/23/lds-church-president-on-parkland-shooting-men-have-passed-laws-that-allow-guns-to-go-to-people-who-shouldnt-have-them/

Any thoughts on his remarks?

Link to comment

If there is a law in a particular jurisdiction which is meant to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, then those involved in effecting the particulars of that law (salespeople, would-be purchasers, merchants, law enforcement, et cetera) should be vigilant in doing so.  If they are not, they should be held to whatever consequences the law stipulates for such a failure.

That said, the greatest effect applied by most laws arises from the voluntary compliance of the law-abiding.  If a person is so determined to break the law that he is willing to injure, to maim, and to kill large numbers of his fellow human beings, it is exceedingly unlikely that simply one more law which renders contraband that means by which he seeks to sow such mayhem and death is going to make a huge difference.

We should be vigilant.  If information comes to our attention which seems to indicate that someone of our acquaintance may harbor such designs, we should bring that person and his purported designs to the attention of the authorities, even if it means that some are likely to dismiss our concerns as "overreacting to kids saying stupid stuff" (my phrase).  But if one is determined enough to do great harm, if a high-capacity, rapid-fire weapon is unavailable, he'll use a bomb; if a bomb is unavailable, he will use some other noxious, highly-lethal means; and so on.  Most of all, if someone in our orbit seems isolated, distant, sad, or angry, perhaps it falls to us to reach out to him.

P.S. And yes, I realize that my purported-but-fictitious "quote" of Tal Bachman is rather ironic in this context.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

Rockpond started a now closed thread about President Nelson's remarks to youth in Vegas, here was the OP

I don't think it ever got mentioned in that thread, but the remarks that are generating attention in the media are these:

Any thoughts on his remarks?

I noticed from your quotation of rockpond that he used the outmoded (in authoritative LDS discourse) term "free agency." yet the quoted portion from President Nelson uses the correct scriptural term, which is simply agency, or, in some usages, moral agency. I'm curious: At any point in his talk, did President Nelson use the phrase "free agency," or was that merely rockpond injecting his own outmoded vernacular into the paraphrase?

 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is not in keeping with the NRA position, whatever that is.

President Nelson said: "God allows us to have our agency, and men have passed laws that allow guns to go to people who shouldn’t have them.”

What is the NRA position? that laws should allow guns to go to people who shouldn't have them? Just a guess, but I'm thinking the NRA would dispute your characterization of their position.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If there is a law in a particular jurisdiction which is meant to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, then those involved in effecting the particulars of that law (salespeople, would-be purchasers, merchants, law enforcement, et cetera) should be vigilant in doing so.  If they are not, they should be held to whatever consequences the law stipulates for such a failure.

That said, the greatest effect applied by most laws arises from the voluntary compliance of the law-abiding.  If a person is so determined to break the law that he is willing to injure, to maim, and to kill large numbers of his fellow human beings, it is exceedingly unlikely that simply one more law which renders contraband that means by which he seeks to sow such mayhem and death is going to make a huge difference.

We should be vigilant.  If information comes to our attention which seems to indicate that someone of our acquaintance may harbor such designs, we should bring that person and his purported designs to the attention of the authorities, even if it means that some are likely to dismiss our concerns as "overreacting to kids saying stupid stuff" (my phrase).  But if one is determined enough to do great harm, if a high-capacity, rapid-fire weapon is unavailable, he'll use a bomb; if a bomb is unavailable, he will use some other noxious, highly-lethal means; and so on.  Most of all, if someone in our orbit seems isolated, distant, sad, or angry, perhaps it falls to us to reach out to him.

P.S. And yes, I realize that my purported-but-fictitious "quote" of Tal Bachman is rather ironic in this context.

I've been hearing in the last few days that sheriff's deputies were hiding outside the school while the shooting was going on instead of going inside to stop the carnage. If that is true, then this is an instance in which it didn't do society any good to have guns in the hands of people who should have them.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I noticed from your quotation of rockpond that he used the outmoded (in authoritative LDS discourse) term "free agency." yet the quoted portion from President Nelson uses the correct scriptural term, which is simply agency, or, in some usages, moral agency. I'm curious: At any point in his talk, did President Nelson use the phrase "free agency," or was that merely rockpond injecting his own outmoded vernacular into the paraphrase?

Pogi's second quotation isn't from rockpond but rather from Fox 13 News. They're the ones using the term "free agency." They also link to a YouTube video containing cellphone camera footage provided by Mike Norton, so I have a hunch the story writer might not be a TBM.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Nevo said:

Pogi's second quotation isn't from rockpond but rather from Fox 13 News. They're the ones using the term "free agency." They also link to a YouTube video containing cellphone camera footage provided by Mike Norton, so I have a hunch the story writer might not be a TBM.

Or it could have been written by a less-than-knowledgable "TBM" (so-called). Plenty of those around.

Regardless, journalistically speaking, 'twould have been more professional to have used the speaker's phrasing rather than adding a modifier the speaker himself did not apply to the noun.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Gillebre said:

I'm with Nevo. and President Nelson. I was just reading an article about how the 'gun lobby' is saying Trump betrays and abandons them by not opposing ALL gun control. It's like a gun cult.

"Gun lobby" is a rather nebulous term.

For instance, the NRA has been mentioned on this thread. Does it oppose "all" gun control? I see in this piece from the L.A. Times that it has called for regulation of bump stocks. Isn't that a form of gun control?

 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

Rockpond started a now closed thread about President Nelson's remarks to youth in Vegas, here was the OP

I don't think it ever got mentioned in that thread, but the remarks that are generating attention in the media are these:

Any thoughts on his remarks?

While we don’t always know who shouldn’t have them (in that we don’t know what harm anyone will do with them), we can look back on the history of gun law. I understand the 2nd Amendment covered those citizens having a moral obligation to use guns (i.e. those protecting and preserving the life, including getting food, property and liberty of oneself and dependents).  There was an also an obligation to use them in serving the interests of the state and nation. I think the moral use of weapons in the Book of Mormon serves as a good template for changes to today’s laws concerning who should possess them.

People shouldn’t have them if they are not using them for those narrow moral purposes. While entertainment, sport and collection are not criminal or immortal, they may not be the best justification for owning guns without more extensive regulation than that required for a proven moral necessity.

Criminals certainly have guns, but from my observation, oddly, a higher level of government corruption coincides with a lower incidence of gun deaths. I wonder what kind of gun laws these more corrupt countries have, and whether these laws can be passed with less corruption and with a moral basis for the possession of guns.

EDIT: to expand:

The motivation to kill, I think, would be reduced by facilitating within a society the exercise of moral agency in a life-affirming direction, which endeavor to thrive would prevent criminal tendency, ideological and ethnic extremism, and mental illness. The motivation to kill would also be reduced by subduing a population's moral agency in the same way corrupt governments (secret combinations) do, which pressures individuals and society to take more of a dystopian, survival approach in their expectations.

Secret combinations (reflected in government corruption) may promise a measure of tranquility and welfare (reflected in this topic in fewer gun deaths) in return for power and control. By compromising some principles such as justice and liberty for the sake of others, a population’s choices and sense of moral agency are undermined and erode over time, and thus we have the warnings in the Book of Mormon. I thin this is why the constitutional protections for religious freedom, historically a key factor in a population’s sense of moral agency, are crucial. I think they enable us to strike that balance between personal agency and societal order.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is the NRA position?

Hopefully Darren10 will get on the thread to clarify. As I understand it, the NRA position is that all law-abiding US citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms. While they have supported instant background checks, they do not appear to be in favor of more extensive background checks or waiting periods for private firearms purchases.

Here in Canada, 18-year-olds can legally purchase and possess AR-15 rifles and handguns (considered "restricted firearms") provided they first pass a police background check, submit to a 45-day waiting period, pass a firearms safety course, and belong to a gun club (since a restricted firearm can only lawfully be used for target shooting). Magazines for AR-15 rifles are limited to 5 cartridges.

School shootings happen in Canada but are rare and result in relatively few deaths. In Canada, firearm ownership is considered a privilege, not a right, and firearms really have only two legitimate uses: hunting or target shooting. In the US, there seems to be much more focus on protecting life/property and guarding against a tyrannical government.

Edited by Nevo
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Nevo said:

I agree completely. Deranged teenagers shouldn't have access to military-style assault rifles with high-capacity magazines. Kudos to President Nelson for having the courage to say it.

You do realize that the armed forces are have large amounts  teenagers with access to military style assault rifles.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You do realize that the armed forces are have large amounts  teenagers with access to military style assault rifles.

Yes, I'm aware. And they're trained to kill. I'm more concerned about unhinged teens harboring revenge fantasies that have an arsenal of military-grade hardware under their bed.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Nevo said:

I agree completely. Deranged teenagers shouldn't have access to military-style assault rifles with high-capacity magazines. Kudos to President Nelson for having the courage to say it.

How does one define "deranged"? Of course the kid who walked into the school and murdered those other kids, fits that definition as does the Las Vegas shooter, Sandy Hook and so on. Were all of these people deranged when the obtained their first weapon, their second one and so on?  How are we going to predict how a weapon will be used throughout the entire life of the weapon? How are we going to predict the mental capabilities of a person 10 years after he or she purchased a gun? And while these high profile cases are horrific, they are just a very small part of the problem we have with gun violence in our society today. So do we spend enormous amounts of money trying to prevent the occasional loner from walking in a school or going up into a hotel and massacring people or do we look to an approach that cuts down substantially on the number of people murdered through out the country? 

 

 

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment

We had over 13,000 people killed by firearms in the US in 2015 and over 26,000 injured. Of those 13,000 only 475 were killed in mass shootings. (Shootings where more than 4 people were killed.) The loner with guns under his bed isn't the problem.

 

Quote

 The US spends more than a trillion dollars per year defending itself against terrorism, which kills a tiny fraction of the number of people killed by ordinary gun crime.

 

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How does one define "deranged"? Of course the kid who walked into the school and murdered those other kids, fits that definition as do the Los Vegas shooter, Sandy Hook and so on. Were all of these people deranged when the obtained their first weapon, their second one and so on?  How are we going to predict how a weapon will be used throughout the entire life of the weapon? How are we going to predict the mental capabilities of a person 10 years after he or she purchased a gun? And while these high profile cases are horrific, they are just a very small part of the problem we have with gun violence in our society today. So do we spend enormous amounts of money trying to prevent the occasional loner from walking in a school or going up into a hotel and massacring people or do we look to an approach that cuts down substantially on the number of people murdered through out the country?

Those are good points. There are lots of angles to consider. I realize that mass shooting deaths are only part of the problem, but I think it's a no-brainer that there should be rigorous background checks and waiting periods before people are allowed to acquire weapons that can kills scores of people in a few minutes. And I think high-capacity magazines should be outlawed on semi-auto centerfire rifles like the AR-15. That alone would drastically reduce mass shooting casualties (see https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/). Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing military-style assault rifles banned altogether.

28 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

We had over 13,000 people killed by firearms in the US in 2015 and over 26,000 injured. Of those 13,000 only 475 were killed in mass shootings. (Shootings where more than 4 people were killed.) The loner with guns under his bed isn't the problem.

Is that figure including suicides? Anyway, I think mandatory safety training and stringent rules around firearm transport and storage would go a long way toward reducing those figures. When you have millions of people carrying loaded handguns on their person or in their glove box and keeping them in the nightstand next to their bed, you're going to have huge numbers of accidental deaths. And, needless to say, people with criminal histories and histories of domestic violence or uttering threats shouldn't be anywhere near firearms.

Edited by Nevo
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How does one define "deranged"? Of course the kid who walked into the school and murdered those other kids, fits that definition as does the Las Vegas shooter, Sandy Hook and so on. Were all of these people deranged when the obtained their first weapon, their second one and so on?  How are we going to predict how a weapon will be used throughout the entire life of the weapon? How are we going to predict the mental capabilities of a person 10 years after he or she purchased a gun? And while these high profile cases are horrific, they are just a very small part of the problem we have with gun violence in our society today. So do we spend enormous amounts of money trying to prevent the occasional loner from walking in a school or going up into a hotel and massacring people or do we look to an approach that cuts down substantially on the number of people murdered through out the country? 

 

 

In this latest instance, there were many reports to local, state and federal law enforcement about the perpetrator in advance of the mass killings. These were ignored. Follow-up on any one of them might have prevented it.

The citizenry did its job; the government in the form of law enforcement failed miserably.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Nevo said:

Those are good points. There are lots of angles to consider. I realize that mass shooting deaths are only part of the problem, but I think it's a no-brainer that there should be rigorous background checks and waiting periods before people are allowed to acquire weapons that can kills scores of people in a few minutes. And I think high-capacity magazines should be outlawed on semi-auto centerfire rifles like the AR-15. That alone would drastically reduce mass shooting casualties.

Is that figure including suicides? I think mandatory safety training and stringent rules around firearm transport and storage would go a long way toward reducing those figures too. When you have millions of people carrying loaded handguns on their person and keeping them in the nightstand next to their bed, you're going to have huge numbers of accidental deaths.

It does not included suicides.

Quote

All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.

 

See the BBC article from here.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Those are good points. There are lots of angles to consider. I realize that mass shooting deaths are only part of the problem, but I think it's a no-brainer that there should be rigorous background checks and waiting periods before people are allowed to acquire weapons that can kills scores of people in a few minutes. And I think high-capacity magazines should be outlawed on semi-auto centerfire rifles like the AR-15. That alone would drastically reduce mass shooting casualties.

Is that figure including suicides? I think mandatory safety training and stringent rules around firearm transport and storage would go a long way toward reducing those figures too. When you have millions of people carrying loaded handguns on their person and keeping them in the nightstand next to their bed, you're going to have huge numbers of accidental deaths. And, needless to say, people with criminal histories and histories of domestic violence and threats shouldn't be anywhere near firearms.

Some are asking: When law enforcement repeatedly fails to respond to advance reports, as it collectively did in the Florida case, do not responsible citizens have the right to arm themselves for protection of themselves, their families and others?

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...