Gun Rights / Gun Control And The Church'S View.

[Duncan]

Look, what you are failing to recognize or admit it is already illegal for guns to be in the hands of the "wrong people". Passing laws against gun ownership is simply a "fell good" action. It does nothing to solve the problem but diverts attention and makes everybody "feel good". Again blaming the gun is faulty logic. The gun does not have emotions or independent action. It has no power to reason or sway action. All of that is done in the mind of the mental health case or the rational citizen. To say it is caused by the gun speak very poorly to the logic used in such a conclusion. As I reported above the worst case of violence in a school resulting in the most deaths of children was not done with a gun but with dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

If it's this fella then he needed to talk to someone to have his rage diverted and I hope the US has learned from this tragedy, not to sell dynamite at a sporting goods store-I have no idea if you can these days get dynamite from a store my guess is not and hopefully you won't be able to get military type weapons either anymore

[Sky]

Look, what you are failing to recognize or admit it is already illegal for guns to be in the hands of the "wrong people".

Is it? How exactly? Sorry, but that is not so apparent to me. See here and here.

Passing laws against gun ownership is simply a "fell good" action. It does nothing to solve the problem but diverts attention and makes everybody "feel good".

Not true

Again blaming the gun is faulty logic. The gun does not have emotions or independent action. It has no power to reason or sway action. All of that is done in the mind of the mental health case or the rational citizen. To say it is caused by the gun speak very poorly to the logic used in such a conclusion.

I never said that guns have emotions or independent action or power to reason. Nobody advocating for more gun control believes that either, so you can stop saying that. But they make it easy for people to kill masses of people. That is what they were built and designed to do, after all. And I'm not talking about small handguns.

As I reported above the worst case of violence in a school resulting in the most deaths of children was not done with a gun but with dynamite.

It strikes me as a bit disingenuous to compare a single school massacre done with dynamite in the 1920's with the string of massacres that have occurred in the past several, most resent decades with assault weapon rifles. But to be fair, we could make them both illegal!

[Saints Alive]

Semi auto fires everytime you pull the trigger. Technically an assault rifle is capable of full auto and will fire as long as you hold down the trigger and you have ammo. Neither one is all that great as a hunting rifle unless you want to spend a lot on bullets.

It has yet to be ascertained if the gun Lanza used was locked up properly.He did shoot his mother first and while she was sleeping so he gained access to the firearm because of her negligence or without her knowledge. It is becoming more obvious that she was very unwise to keep weapons in the home with a disturbed son.

fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US the gun Adam Lanza used was not fully automatic. It was semi-automatic the same as many hunting rifles. Another thing to think about the rifle he used, the so called "military style" rifle shoots .22 cal bullets, not really big ammo. Yes with a regular .22, semi-automatic hunting rifle he could have done the same thing.

[Saints Alive]

I think clips should be limited to something more like 10 shots, but am willing to be educated here. All I can think of for legally needing that many shots in a self-defense scenario is if one were to take on a gang and considering how rarely that would happen and how someone would still be able to get to you while you are aiming in the other direction, I do think a viable gun law would be to lessen the amounts of shots per clip allowed.

The magazine is the easiest part of the gun to make. It's just a box with a spring in it. Nut cases will build their own if the want.

[sunstoned]

I agree with you that it is hard for outsiders to understand, but guns are part of the fabric of America. Tt is part of our psyche that is usually associated an independent spirit. A part of me is proud of this heritage, and part of me is deeply saddened by it. For better or worse, guns in America are not going to go away. I am a gun owner, and have had a gun since I was 12 years old. If I thought that giving up my right (and it is a right in America) of gun ownership would stop this mass violence, then I would in a heartbeat. But it won’t. The cat has long been out of the bag. There are so many guns in America, over 300 million at last count. Even if outlawed, there would still be guns. Drugs are illegal, but middle schoolers seem to have no problem getting access to them.

I don’t know what the answer is, but do need to find one..

[Saints Alive]

At one level we need better mental health services, and at the same time we also have to accept that we cannot prevent tragedy. It only takes a few household, everyday items and chemicals to make something incredibly dangerous. We can't outlaw everything that could be used as a weapon, we would have nothing left.

[sunstoned]

I think clips should be limited to something more like 10 shots, but am willing to be educated here. All I can think of for legally needing that many shots in a self-defense scenario is if one were to take on a gang and considering how rarely that would happen and how someone would still be able to get to you while you are aiming in the other direction, I do think a viable gun law would be to lessen the amounts of shots per clip allowed.

I would support this, as I feel that high capacity mags are not really needed for sport, hunting or target shooting. However, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about guns. I worry that the so called “assault rifle” is going to be the scapegoat, and that once this is banned or high capacity mags are banned, folk might think the problem has been addressed. But this won’t change a thing.

Do you think this sick person would have re-thought is plan if he could not have laid his hands on a 30 round clip or a black rifle? I don’t think so. The civilian look-a-like of the military assault rifle is just a semi automatic rifle. It looks all business, but you can buy a semi automatic rifle with a wood stock and a blued barrel that has the same fire power. It just looks more “sporting”. Even the lowly 30-30 lever action deer rifle has close to the same rate of fire, and can hold between 7 and 12 rounds depending on the caliber. Same goes with shot gun, which can do terrible damage at close quarters. Banning a type of gun won’t change a thing.

[Calm]

I would support this, as I feel that high capacity mags are not really needed for sport, hunting or target shooting. However, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about guns. I worry that the so called “assault rifle” is going to be the scapegoat, and that once this is banned or high capacity mags are banned, folk might think the problem has been addressed. But this won’t change a thing.

Do you think this sick person would have re-thought is plan if he could not have laid his hands on a 30 round clip or a black rifle?

I don't think such things will stop anyone from going after others with intent to kiil. I would just suggest altering guns in such a way that it gives a victim a better chance to either defend himself or flee. If such things are easy to alter, then I don't know if it would be worth the resources to do so.

And I would definitely hope that even if such measures were put into place, no one would look on them except as something that gives a victim a slightly better chance of survival.

Edited December 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[DavidB]

Delete.

Edited December 23, 2012 by DavidB

[DavidB]

When it comes to personal property and what one thinks another needs, where is the standard?

I have several firearms, never needed one of them. I enjoy shooting. I also enjoy not having to reload after every trigger pull.

But if I do not need a firearm for my own enjoyment and pleasure, then I say no one needs a car or living quarters larger than a minimum square footage based on family size. And no one certainly needs fast internet, large screen tv...so many things in life a person does not need.

[Saints Alive]

DavidB:

I wouldn't call myself a gun control advocate but large houses and big screen tv's don't kill people. That's the big difference.

[Tacenda]

I am sure it happens but heck if anyone wants to gets involved in flipping shootout with someone! can you imagine if everyone was armed in that Colorado theatre firing away? it would be a war added to a disaster-i'd say just call the Police and let them deal with it-guns make me SO nervous!!! I live in a different country where gun laws are strict, which is why here we hardly ever have any massacres-I think... the last one was in 1989

I agree, no assault weapons should be allowed. If the gunmen only had a pistal or a rifle what a difference that would have made. Of course I'm sure we'd still find the machine type guns on the black market but believe overall there would be less mass shootings.

[Tacenda]

If everyone in the Colorado theatre had been armed, there wouldn't have been a shootout because the shooter wouldn't have gone in there in the first place. The people who commit these massacres are cowards who purposely choose groups they know are defenseless.

Why didn't the Connecticut shooter keep killing children? Because the police (someone with a gun) showed up. Was there a shootout then? No because as soon as someone who could defend himself showed up, the shooter killed himself.

Where I grew up, guns were plentiful and the idea of someone going into a kindergarden class and shooting kids was unthinkable. It's easy to blame guns for this but there's something else going on here. If we make guns the scapegoat, we won't be looking for the real underlying problem.

Just like a terrorist hijacking a plane and then flying into buildings was unthinkable. I guess we need to think of better stradegies. Edited December 23, 2012 by Tacenda

[Saints Alive]

I agree, no assault weapons should be allowed. If the gunmen only had a pistal or a rifle what a difference that would have made. Of course I'm sure we'd still find the machine type guns on the black market but believe overall there would be less mass shootings.

all of these shootings have been done with semi-automatic weapons, fully automatic weapons are illegal, except for gangs that still manage to get ahold of them. And let's not forget the assault weapons ban was in place when columbine happened.

[DavidB]

DavidB:

I wouldn't call myself a gun control advocate but large houses and big screen tv's don't kill people. That's the big difference.

Ok so death of others is the standard, how about alochol ban, tobacco ban.

Proposed bans after traumatic events are driven by emotionalism, else there would widespread support for bans the many things in life that cause death.

[pogi]

DavidB:

I wouldn't call myself a gun control advocate but large houses and big screen tv's don't kill people. That's the big difference.

But cars do. If we got rid of all cars, we would have cleaner air to breathe, less noise pollution as well, a healthier public, increased well being through exercise and vitamin D boost from being outside, not only would death rates from car accidents decrease but death rates from diabetes, heart disease and other health related causes of death would decrease as well. We would have dramatically reduced need to consume oil, no more $2000 car repairs, imagine the money that we all could save from not paying for cars, gas, and repairs. We don't need cars, we can get by with bikes and boost public transportation, we have almost every reason to do so, plus they kill people. Doesn't seem to matter how safe we make cars, they keep killing people, and yet we keep getting behind the wheel every morning. We can't justify banning guns for that reason if we do not do the same for cars. I can see far more reason to get rid of cars than guns, and almost wish that we would. I love my bike. But in the end, I love the idea of personal liberties more than my bike.

[thesometimesaint]

If it wasn't guns it would be improvised explosive devices. Take your pick. I agree with the mental health services comment however.

America would be Britain if it were not for guns in the hands of the people.

Guns are an improvement over the IED. You have to be very close to an IED(A few feet) for it to be effective while guns are effective to up to 2 miles.

As a mental health worker you either pay my bill or you pay the reaper's bill.

The American Revolution was done and over before the first shot was fired. Moreover it wasn't the individual backwoodsman who won that war. It was an established Army and Navy largely trained and armed by the French that did.

[thesometimesaint]

Worldwide,no question.

In the US , debatable.

My mistake, However in the near future not so debatable.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/18/gun_deaths_in_america_gun_deaths_outpace_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_at_least.html

[thesometimesaint]

But cars do. If we got rid of all cars, we would have cleaner air to breathe, less noise pollution as well, a healthier public, increased well being through exercise and vitamin D boost from being outside, not only would death rates from car accidents decrease but death rates from diabetes, heart disease and other health related causes of death would decrease as well. We would have dramatically reduced need to consume oil, no more $2000 car repairs, imagine the money that we all could save from not paying for cars, gas, and repairs. We don't need cars, we can get by with bikes and boost public transportation, we have almost every reason to do so, plus they kill people. Doesn't seem to matter how safe we make cars, they keep killing people, and yet we keep getting behind the wheel every morning. We can't justify banning guns for that reason if we do not do the same for cars. I can see far more reason to get rid of cars than guns, and almost wish that we would. I love my bike. But in the end, I love the idea of personal liberties more than my bike.

It is always a trade off. Henry Ford did more to liberate people than Samuel Colt.

More people die each year from the ingestion of too much food than cars and guns combined, but I don't foresee a big push to outlaw food.

A car has many purposes and contributes vastly more to our individual and country's economy than guns. While guns have but one purpose and that is to kill. Plus while less expensive than cars, guns do require periodic maintenance, regular practice for proficiency, and the associated cost of keeping them secure from unauthorized individuals.

[wenglund]

I'm just curious if there are any statements from church leaders about gun rights / gun control or is this one of those issues that the church chooses to remain neutral in?

(please keep this as apolitical as possible)

I don't know about statements, but Joseph's action in the Carthage jail may be instructive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see how it be instructive to modern day Saints except as an example of what not to do if you want to be effective in fighting back. Joseph was out-manned, outmaneuvered, and outgunned from the start. There really was just no way for Joseph to have won that one. He really did go as a lamb to the slaughter.

[thesometimesaint]

Again, The guns do not commit the massacres it is the mental health case doing it. So instead of taking guns away from all the law abiding citizens lets find a way to help the mental health case.

Guns are inanimate objects. They can't do anything by themselves. Most gun users aren't clinically insane, nor are most murderers mass or otherwise. Even "law abiding citizens" will do things in passion that in cold hard thinking they wouldn't ever do otherwise. It is true that people with some types of clinical mental health problems should never have access to guns. Mostly they are a bigger threat to themselves, or from others, than they are to others.

[wenglund]

I don't see how it be instructive to modern day Saints except as an example of what not to do if you want to be effective in fighting back. Joseph was out-manned, outmaneuvered, and outgunned from the start. There really was just no way for Joseph to have won that one. He really did go as a lamb to the slaughter.

This is a great example of how to mangle a simple point with layers of irrelevancies. You have a gift.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Duncan]

Guns are inanimate objects. They can't do anything by themselves. Most gun users aren't clinically insane, nor are most murderers mass or otherwise. Even "law abiding citizens" will do things in passion that in cold hard thinking they wouldn't ever do otherwise. It is true that people with some types of clinical mental health problems should never have access to guns. Mostly they are a bigger threat to themselves, or from others, than they are to others.

I was talking to a friend earlier and he is a criminal lawyer and I asked him what percent of accused people who plead guilty or not guilty by some mental health defect of however they phrase actually get away with it and he said less then 10 percent! so, you're right. It's a tough , tough issue to figure out how unwell someone is and should that person have access to weapons. I just don't want anymore of these massacres happening and the ease of which people can get weapons and all kinds of things is scary

[bdouglas]

I don't know about statements, but Joseph's action in the Carthage jail may be instructive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This from LDS.org is also instructive:

Consider the experience of Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve. Some years ago, Elder Oaks was living in Chicago when one night he was confronted by a young robber with a gun. Elder Oaks had no money to give him, no watch, nothing of value except his car—and his wife was in the car. Both Elder Oaks and his wife were at great risk. During the encounter, Elder Oaks had an opportunity to grab the gun without the likelihood of being shot. “I was taller and heavier than this young man,” Elder Oaks explains, “and at that time of my life was somewhat athletic. I had no doubt that I could prevail in a quick wrestling match if I could get his gun out of the contest.

“Just as I was about to make my move, I had a unique experience. I did not see anything or hear anything, but I knew something. I knew what would happen if I grabbed that gun. We would struggle, and I would turn the gun into that young man’s chest. It would fire, and he would die. I also knew that I must not have the blood of that young man on my conscience for the rest of my life.” (See New Era, Mar. 1994, 4.)