Lds Church Subsidiary And Guns

[Damien the Leper]

http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2012/07/22/the-mormon-church-sells-unregulated-guns/

I was wondering if anyone knows about the truthfulness of this story. It would be sad and disgusting that if any business associated with the church sells unregulated guns.

[treehugger]

Worthless drivel. And I highly doubt the sincerity of whatever disgust a person may express.

For the coming election all stops will be pulled. If romeny can be made to look like a fool because ksl, a LDS subsidiary then, people will make every lame effort to make romantic look like a fool.

And this hack piece is reguritation of old news, and is puked forth as an attempt to infringe on free enterprise and the Constitutional Rights of Americans. Is it all too disappointing.g and sad that our gov sales firearms to drug lords in a back door attempt to claim firearms need more regulation. Honest dealers will stay honest, nothing will stop dishonest dealers.

Have I mentioned that the article is just a hack piece?

[Damien the Leper]

Worthless drivel. And I highly doubt the sincerity of whatever disgust a person may express.

For the coming election all stops will be pulled. If romeny can be made to look like a fool because ksl, a LDS subsidiary then, people will make every lame effort to make romantic look like a fool.

And this hack piece is reguritation of old news, and is puked forth as an attempt to infringe on free enterprise and the Constitutional Rights of Americans. Is it all too disappointing.g and sad that our gov sales firearms to drug lords in a back door attempt to claim firearms need more regulation. Honest dealers will stay honest, nothing will stop dishonest dealers.

Have I mentioned that the article is just a hack piece?

I concluded the same as you. I was just curious if anyone had any better information that was less agenda driven.

[Duncan]

well, I am all for regulation for guns and their owners yet I can't fathom why anyone needs a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, police and military aside. In saying that though I think people who live in the country appreciate guns more and use them for hunting purposes than people who live in the city-who don't need guns IMO. I recall about twenty years ago a petition went around our ward trying to stop the regulation of weapons-if that happened now I would complain

[rpn]

That is just silly. A claim that selling classified ads means they are responsible for unregulated gun sales is stretching it quite far (and since they are not illegal, also defaming by putting into false light). I'm quite sure that if KSL weren't the craigslist equivalent in SLC, there wouldnt' be as many gun ads on the site either.

[ERayR]

I concluded the same as you. I was just curious if anyone had any better information that was less agenda driven.

The only thing I know is that when you have an armed citizenry gun violence declines. Can't find it now but there was some research on this a few years ago.

[Duncan]

The only thing I know is that when you have an armed citizenry gun violence declines. Can't find it now but there was some research on this a few years ago.

wouldn't no guns mean even less gun violence?

[blackstrap]

no guns would just move the violence to other items,ie knives,clubs etc. My problem with handguns is the number of accidental shootings of family members especially kids. For all the reasoning that one should have a gun to protect ones family and property,too often it is the family that gets shot by accident or through domestic violence.

[bluebell]

wouldn't no guns mean even less gun violence?

It would, in theory.

But criminals never have any trouble finding guns, so in reality, no legal guns only means that no law abiding citizens are armed. Of course, law abiding citzens are rarely the ones committing crimes with guns, so there's the trouble. The criminals are still armed.

Laws will only impact those willing to abide by them and if you are willing to use a gun in a crime, the law has no power to stop you-it only has the power to punish you after you have used the gun in a crime.

If i understand correctly (and maybe i don't), the theater where the massacre in CO took place had a 'no guns allowed' policy (making it so even people with permits allowing them to carry guns concealed could not do so). Obviously, that rule (if it did exist) had no impact on the amount of gun violence occurring in the theater. The criminal did not care in the least that guns were prohibited.

[Darren10]

Valentinus;

From your link:

The Mormon Church isn’t just a house of worship, it’s a business too. In fact it’s a huge corporate conglomerate with many commercial subsidiaries, including “one of the most active and unregulated gun sale websites in America.”

(snip)

Well, except none of those things are specifically designed to kill. And how exactly is a sternly worded statement going to stop a homicidal maniac from buying guns. It’s exactly this lackadaisical attitude that contributes to our embarrassing gun-related death rate. Check out this interactive map on gun deaths to see how we compare to the rest of the world. It’s appalling.

These are talking points from the more liberal side of the tracks and it seems this is spewed out now in the blog post from the Detroit News in order to reemphasize the idea that The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is a "big business" and now it is connected to the sale of unregulated guns. Those of a more liberal pursuasion often cite statistics to show the grave numbers of gun deaths in the US (since it has the most liberal gun policies of all the industrialized world) and use words like "appalling" in reaction to the cited stats. And perhaps it's just a coincidence that this blog post was made soon after the horrific murders in Aurora, Colorado, but I really don't think so, especially after reading the author's fourth paragraph.

I don't want to make Mormon Dialogue political but I'm going to be blunt. The fact ofte matter is that there are stats which show an increase in gun sales while a decrease in vilent crimes in america. I just listened to michael Medvied today citing how the overall number of violent deaths in the past decade have decreased despite an increase in population and also a big increase in gun sales. I agree with Robert A. Heinlein, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life". (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/robertahe100989.html). Where are the tragic shootings in the US? Almost always at "gunfree xones": (Virginia Tech, movie theater, military bases - yes, there are gun free zones there. see, Lessons from Fort Hood shooting).

Now, to the point of KSL allowing the sale of unregulated guns to anomynous buyers...what's the source? Here it is: Mormon Church 'owns unregulated gun sale website'. It just so happens that this article cites...

One of the most active and unregulated gun sale websites in America is owned by the Mormon Church, an investigation by New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has revealed.

(bold mine)

Ummm, yeah, the guy who has to take away the people's Big Gulp is trusted as a source? Even takeing Bloomberg's words at face value..."The study by the New York mayor showed that 40 per cent of gun sales were made through private vendors rather than reputable dealers. Of these private sellers, 62 per cent carried out no background checks on those they sold to," I say, so what? How many of these sales ended up in the 30,000 US shootings or so Libby Spencer expresses horrification over (and with no cited source to that number)?

In the meantime, for a more fun take on gun control, via a fellow blogger of mine, here's a good post on why New York city was invaded by an alien force in the latest Avengers movie (which I thoroughly enjoyed).

“Freedom is life’s great lie. Once you accept that, in your heart… You will know peace.” – Loki (channeling Mayor Bloomberg)

LOL!!! Why the Avengers movie had to be set in New York City

[Darren10]

wouldn't no guns mean even less gun violence?

Like, bluebell pointed out, this is in theory only. In societies which have "no guns", violence increases in large part because criminals know that their intended victims are disarmed.

[Darren10]

If i understand correctly (and maybe i don't), the theater where the massacre in CO took place had a 'no guns allowed' policy (making it so even people with permits allowing them to carry guns concealed could not do so). Obviously, that rule (if it did exist) had no impact on the amount of gun violence occurring in the theater. The criminal did not care in the least that guns were prohibited.

That is correct and while I absolutely do not want to take away a private businesses' right to decide for itself if guns are allowed on its premesis I think it is very shortsided to think that prohibiting legal concealed carry makes a propery safer.

[Darren10]

well, I am all for regulation for guns and their owners yet I can't fathom why anyone needs a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, police and military aside. In saying that though I think people who live in the country appreciate guns more and use them for hunting purposes than people who live in the city-who don't need guns IMO. I recall about twenty years ago a petition went around our ward trying to stop the regulation of weapons-if that happened now I would complain

I understand your point of arguyment but I'm one who is VERY leary of regulating what people buy simply because they "don't need it".

[Stargazer]

well, I am all for regulation for guns and their owners yet I can't fathom why anyone needs a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, police and military aside. In saying that though I think people who live in the country appreciate guns more and use them for hunting purposes than people who live in the city-who don't need guns IMO. I recall about twenty years ago a petition went around our ward trying to stop the regulation of weapons-if that happened now I would complain

Well, I am all in favor for regulation of automobiles and automobile owners, yet I can't fathom why anyone needs a vehicle that can go faster than 60 mph, police or military aside. In saying that, I think that people living in the country where some speed limits are 70 mph, perhaps they would appreciate faster cars, but those live in the city don't need cars that can go faster than 35 mph, and in some cities they shouldn't be permitted to keep cars at all, and should use public transit only.

That being said, why do you think ought to be done about people wanting semi-automatic weapons? Btw, automatic weapons are completely illegal in some states and in others only people specially licensed by the ATF may own them (outside of law enforcement). Do you actually have an objective reason for not wanting private citizens to own semi-automatic rifles? Other than just having an uncomfortable feeling about weapons in general? And keep in mind that "semi-automatic" means that after one trigger pull, firing one round, the weapon uses gas or recoil to load another, and a large percentage of privately-owned firearms are semi-automatic.

[Duncan]

I know in a perfect world guns and hatred and violence won't exist but it would be nice to live in some society like that. I can't even concieve of a reaosn why someone needs a machine gun like weapon. if people want that stuff doesn't that send signals to others that maybe something is potentially amiss? Again I know the realities of life but people can't have everything they want and if you hurt other people with something it should get taken away

[Duncan]

Well, I am all in favor for regulation of automobiles and automobile owners, yet I can't fathom why anyone needs a vehicle that can go faster than 60 mph, police or military aside. In saying that, I think that people living in the country where some speed limits are 70 mph, perhaps they would appreciate faster cars, but those live in the city don't need cars that can go faster than 35 mph, and in some cities they shouldn't be permitted to keep cars at all, and should use public transit only.

That being said, why do you think ought to be done about people wanting semi-automatic weapons? Btw, automatic weapons are completely illegal in some states and in others only people specially licensed by the ATF may own them (outside of law enforcement). Do you actually have an objective reason for not wanting private citizens to own semi-automatic rifles? Other than just having an uncomfortable feeling about weapons in general? And keep in mind that "semi-automatic" means that after one trigger pull, firing one round, the weapon uses gas or recoil to load another, and a large percentage of privately-owned firearms are semi-automatic.

i can see your point and all but I don't recall any cars being driven into theatres either. I know full well speed demons kill on the roadways and some are lucky they don't die with innocent others. What do you mean by "private citizens"? don't we all live together in a society? What reason do people need to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons-I just can't get my head around why people need it.

[Duncan]

I understand your point of arguyment but I'm one who is VERY leary of regulating what people buy simply because they "don't need it".

I am not talking about cars or houses or clothes but weapons-weapons are built to inflict pain on an animal or sadly people. I don't own a weapon but my granddad did and he used it to hunt for food and to kill wolves and stuff that threatened his livestock so those needs I see but he didn't own a Gatling gun to do it

[Duncan]

It would, in theory.

But criminals never have any trouble finding guns, so in reality, no legal guns only means that no law abiding citizens are armed. Of course, law abiding citzens are rarely the ones committing crimes with guns, so there's the trouble. The criminals are still armed.

Laws will only impact those willing to abide by them and if you are willing to use a gun in a crime, the law has no power to stop you-it only has the power to punish you after you have used the gun in a crime.

If i understand correctly (and maybe i don't), the theater where the massacre in CO took place had a 'no guns allowed' policy (making it so even people with permits allowing them to carry guns concealed could not do so). Obviously, that rule (if it did exist) had no impact on the amount of gun violence occurring in the theater. The criminal did not care in the least that guns were prohibited.

I get what you're saying I just would like to see a society that hatred and violence is gone and by people's own choice and not by force. The issue as it is is people who don't abide by the laws that exist but I think and I don't know but shouldn't or don't all US States have a no big gun policy? In Canada I think we do but sadly it hasn't stopped criminals from shooting up places. In theory it would be nice not to have the same type of episodes occur over and over again and what do we learn from them?

[Duncan]

no guns would just move the violence to other items,ie knives,clubs etc. My problem with handguns is the number of accidental shootings of family members especially kids. For all the reasoning that one should have a gun to protect ones family and property,too often it is the family that gets shot by accident or through domestic violence.

if you're mad enough at someone you can kill them with almost anything. Handguns are stupid, I can see the cops needing them but I think we in Canad have a no handgun policy

[Duncan]

I hope I didn't come across as holier then anyone else I just don't want anyone to get that impression!

[Stargazer]

wouldn't no guns mean even less gun violence?

Of course, where there are no guns there can, ipso facto, be no "gun violence". But there is no civilized society on earth where there are no guns -- if illegal for private citizens to own firearms, nevertheless the criminal class will ignore any such rules. So your question is pointless, to a degree. The whole correlation issue with relation to gun ownership is that there is no correlation. Japan and Great Britain have very strict gun laws. Japan's murder rate is extremely low, but Great Britain's is much higher and apparently getting worse. Meanwhile, in the US, while the murder rate is higher than Great Britain's, it is at its lowest point in 30 years. Despite the even greater degree of gun ownership. Here's an article in The Guardian, discussing with some puzzlement why the US crime rate is getting better instead of worse.

And don't get me started about the Swiss. As some wag once said,

. And all of them keep their fully-automattic weapons at home. Gun murder rate? In a year when the US had 9,000+ murders committed using a firearm, Switzerland had 68.

[Duncan]

Of course, where there are no guns there can, ipso facto, be no "gun violence". But there is no civilized society on earth where there are no guns -- if illegal for private citizens to own firearms, nevertheless the criminal class will ignore any such rules. So your question is pointless, to a degree. The whole correlation issue with relation to gun ownership is that there is no correlation. Japan and Great Britain have very strict gun laws. Japan's murder rate is extremely low, but Great Britain's is much higher and apparently getting worse. Meanwhile, in the US, while the murder rate is higher than Great Britain's, it is at its lowest point in 30 years. Despite the even greater degree of gun ownership. Here's an article in The Guardian, discussing with some puzzlement why the US crime rate is getting better instead of worse.

And don't get me started about the Swiss. As some wag once said,

. And all of them keep their fully-automattic weapons at home. Gun murder rate? In a year when the US had 9,000+ murders committed using a firearm, Switzerland had 68.

some might say that gun violence is a sign of uncivilized society-yeah the Swiss-terrible cheese!

[Darren10]

I can't even concieve of a reaosn why someone needs a machine gun like weapon. if people want that stuff doesn't that send signals to others that maybe something is potentially amiss?

No different than if someone wanted to earn a black belt as opposed to taking a basic self-defense class. Some people like the "art" of guns.

[Darren10]

Again I know the realities of life but people can't have everything they want and if you hurt other people with something it should get taken away

What about if you NEVER hurt someone?

[Stargazer]

i can see your point and all but I don't recall any cars being driven into theatres either. I know full well speed demons kill on the roadways and some are lucky they don't die with innocent others. What do you mean by "private citizens"? don't we all live together in a society? What reason do people need to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons-I just can't get my head around why people need it.

Nobody's talking about driving cars into theaters. I was trying to be cute.

By "private citizen" I mean an individual in his capacity as a citizen, not an individual in his capacity as a policeman or soldier, if he is one.

"Need"? Hmmm. The US needed private ownership of firearms to actualize its rebellion from Great Britain. Simply telling George III "We're out of here" wouldn't have quite gotten the point across.

As to the need for semi-automatic firearms, well what about the need for an automobile that can go faster than the legal speed limit? Who needs that? Heh. Consider this, however, just as it can be important to be able to put in a burst of speed to get past a dangerous situation, trying to defend your home from criminals trying to invade it is not well accomplished with a single-shot weapon.

[media=]

1 against four.