Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:It was a while back and I did not have a chance to verify it but I read on a blog somewhere that Trump is considering signing an executive order to give the people an armed militia,if so,what say ya'll?

As far as I know we already have the right to bear arms and the right to peaceful assembly, so between them we should have the right to peacefully assemble to train as militia. And as far as I know people already do that.

So I'd say that that story is nonsense. Trump doesn't have the authority to allow people to form militias because he doesn't have the authority to prevent it.

News Flash: The NRA did WHAT???!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10 ... oting.html

Yep. They're afraid that this time will be different, so they're trying to scapegoat bump stocks.

Don't get me wrong - it's nuts that such a thing is legal - but if the guy had just had 12 unmodified semiautomatic rifles it would still have been a massacre.

edwardmurphy wrote:Yep. They're afraid that this time will be different, so they're trying to scapegoat bump stocks.

Don't get me wrong - it's nuts that such a thing is legal - but if the guy had just had 12 unmodified semiautomatic rifles it would still have been a massacre.

Or if he used the 50 pounds of ammonium nitrate they found in his car, it could've been more of a massacre.

Ed: if the guy had just had 12 unmodified semiautomatic rifles it would still have been a massacre.

And thus we have the other popular argument for not having some sensible changes to what should be legal - it's alway, "Yeah, if the person can't get his hands on something fully automatic, then all he's gonna do is bring more weapons with him." But in many circumstances, doing so becomes much more difficult. Course, stashing ahead, planning - fairly easy. Ah, but that makes it much more difficult, unless planned and stashing weapons far ahead. But it's true, the determined nut job will find a way.

Three factors really raised the body count in Vegas: 1) The number of high velocity, long-range, rapid-fire capable weapons he had, 2) that he was quite a distance and high above, and loud music and the distance from the shooter made it difficult to immediately discern what was happening, or where the fire was coming from, 3) His location bought him a lot of time - and so he fired for such a long period. So, he obviously planned this for quite some time. But you can bet, if he couldn't have purchased what weaponry he used, legally, you can be assured some sleazeball would have sold him black-market guns if he had enough cash (and he DID) - meaning, it would just be more time-consuming to gather the weapons. But heck, he'd been collecting guns for a very long time. No record. No mental history - how are you gonna stop a guy like that? Can't be done! But that's not the typical scenario some additional controls would be meant to address. And yet, so many seem to think we can use the law to keep us relatively safe (funny word, "relatively").

And so what are outdoor concerts near high buildings or structures going to do now?

edwardmurphy wrote:Yep. They're afraid that this time will be different, so they're trying to scapegoat bump stocks.

Don't get me wrong - it's nuts that such a thing is legal - but if the guy had just had 12 unmodified semiautomatic rifles it would still have been a massacre.

That's the smartest thing you've said.

Yet you still miss the point. It's as if you're being deliberately obtuse.

You are correct that there will always be violence, and that a determined killer will try something different if he can't get a gun.

You're wrong that those facts mean that we shouldn't bother trying to prevent events like Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernardino, Georgia Tech, Columbine, and all the rest. You're just mindlessly parroting gun lobby propaganda.

Eliminate bump stocks and fewer people die. Eliminate high-capacity magazines a the number drops again. Fewer bullets fired means fewer gunshot victims. Add a national gun registry and maybe his purchases draw some scrutiny. Or maybe he gets caught trying to buy illegal weapons or mods and that slows, or even stops him. Or maybe it doesn't, but it helps mitigate the damage the next guy does. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Or we could do nothing and just accept that going to school, or a restaurant, or a concert, or work carries the risk of being shot to death.

I'm not sure why so many on the right accept the second option. Some are clearly gun lobby shills, but the rest baffle me. Is it paranoia, or knee-jerk opposition to anything that "the liberals" suggest, or what?

edwardmurphy wrote:Yet you still miss the point. It's as if you're being deliberately obtuse.

You are correct that there will always be violence, and that a determined killer will try something different if he can't get a gun.

You're wrong that those facts mean that we shouldn't bother trying to prevent events like Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernardino, Georgia Tech, Columbine, and all the rest. You're just mindlessly parroting gun lobby propaganda.

Eliminate bump stocks and fewer people die. Eliminate high-capacity magazines a the number drops again. Fewer bullets fired means fewer gunshot victims. Add a national gun registry and maybe his purchases draw some scrutiny. Or maybe he gets caught trying to buy illegal weapons or mods and that slows, or even stops him. Or maybe it doesn't, but it helps mitigate the damage the next guy does. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Or we could do nothing and just accept that going to school, or a restaurant, or a concert, or work carries the risk of being shot to death.

I'm not sure why so many on the right accept the second option. Some are clearly gun lobby shills, but the rest baffle me. Is it paranoia, or knee-jerk opposition to anything that "the liberals" suggest, or what?

And now you're back to your smug, usual self. Not only do you not bother to read what people actually say, but attribute to them things they in fact have not said. I don't know if that's just over-zealous ignorance or deliberate deception.

I dare you, show me anywhere in this thread or any other thread where I said or even implied:

... that those facts mean that we shouldn't bother trying to prevent events like Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernardino, Georgia Tech, Columbine, and all the rest.

And if you can't show a direct quote or an implication then I would expect an apology (but won't hold my breath).

In fact, I said the exact opposite, that I am in favor of some measures of gun control and no, I have not gone leftie-soft but have always tried to balance my conservatism with pragmatism and common sense, much like I do with my theology.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ok, allow me to be more specific:
The view is that if you reduce the availability of automatic weapons then deaths, mass deaths as the case in Vegas, by firearms, will be reduced.

But that's exactly the myth gun control advocates want everyone to believe, except it is only a myth. You really think for one second if Paddock didn't have access to the large cache of weapons he had, that he wouldn't have found another way of committing mass murder, perhaps at a much larger scale? When the intent is there, a way is always found. That's the bottom line.

Seems like a pretty clear implication right there, but if that wasn't your intent then please accept my humble apology.

Perhaps you could take a shot at clarifying your position...

edwardmurphy wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ok, allow me to be more specific:
The view is that if you reduce the availability of automatic weapons then deaths, mass deaths as the case in Vegas, by firearms, will be reduced.

But that's exactly the myth gun control advocates want everyone to believe, except it is only a myth. You really think for one second if Paddock didn't have access to the large cache of weapons he had, that he wouldn't have found another way of committing mass murder, perhaps at a much larger scale? When the intent is there, a way is always found. That's the bottom line.

Seems like a pretty clear implication right there, but if that wasn't your intent then please accept my humble apology.

What I said is not only very clear, that no gun control law can prevent such tragedies, but also that nowhere did I say I'm opposed to such laws.

Perhaps you could take a shot at clarifying your position...

My position is very clear but I will restate it since you asked. I am in favor of any sensible gun control laws including a full ban on bump stocks. I am under no illusion that such controls will reduce even, much less stop such heinous acts, nor am I under any delusion that those restrictions will deter seekers (mostly the bad guys) from acquiring banned products through illicit means.

Is that clear enough for ya?

Not really. The word "sensible" is completely subjective, so I still have no real idea what you mean by that. It's also not clear to me why you support some type of gun control if you think it's entirely pointless.

Lol, ok Ed I'll play.

edwardmurphy wrote:Not really. The word "sensible" is completely subjective, so I still have no real idea what you mean by that.

Subjective? Does that mean you believe there are some things truly objective? (or am I confusing you with kenny ).

But you're right, what is sensible to me may not be to you so it is rather subjective. But the objective (pun very much intended) ought to be some kind of compromise.

edwardmurphy wrote:It's also not clear to me why you support some type of gun control if you think it's entirely pointless.

To satisfy bleeding-heart lefties while at the same time acknowledging the stark reality that a deeper problem exists no one is addressing. The question of why, not how.

I think we might actually have something we CAN do to prevent mass killings.

http://www.connection2recovery.com/unca ... pic-drugs/

Thoughts?

Can we be certain prudent addition controls would be significantly effective? Course not. But we also don't know they wouldn't. We can only try legislation that seems sensible. Even if one life is saved, without hurting others, doesn't it make sense to try? Again, while also affirming our rights to protect ourselves with personal weapons. Also, the technology available makes this a complex issue.

I understand that it took 30 minutes for the Police to get into the room the shooter was shooting from,30 minutes and people were pointing to the window from where the shooting came from.Now imagine this,at the concert just 20 people had been carrying high powered sniper rifles with scopes on them and as the shooter began firing them 20 people shot the shooter. It would have been over in a matter of minutes not 30 minutes. So this is why I say we should be able to have as much fire power as we choose to. The Police cannot always get to you.