Show Outline with Links
Feasting as Fighting
Trevin Wax has a great piece on the Christian duty to feast.
CLICK HERE TO READ
You Gotta Love the 21st Century
You Can Run on for a Long Time…
68% of Murders Occur in 5% of US Counties
Well looky here, it would seem that gun-control might not be the solution to gun-violence…
CLICK HERE TO READ
Blog & Mablog: When Christianity Today’s humanism finally gets to you, you know where to turn…
Wilson, thanks for being present and having never given up on this blog. If it were a published magazine I would subscribe to it.
If you want an honest look at the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, make any search for “which states have the highest rate of gun deaths” or anything like that. Then compare it to a map of gun ownership. You’ll get much better answers than the clearly misleading sites that show you maps of total gun deaths (not rate by population), or which try to compare rural and urban counties straight-up as if they don’t already have extreme differences in crime rates for a hundred reasons more important than gun laws. A state-by-state comparison isn’t perfect either. But… Read more »
Los Angeles County is closing in on ten million people–a larger population than in 40 of the states. It would be hard to imagine that life in the urban core would be safer if we could just bring in more guns.
Yep. Right now California has the 9th-lowest gun ownership rate in the United States, and the 8th-lowest gun death rate. Those numbers are so similar across all the states that it’s hard to believe the correlation isn’t clear. (The five lowest gun death rates belong to Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut). If you change it to strictly gun homicide, California is still below average, despite being home to far and away more gang members than any other state in the country. (Those in the “guns make us safer” camp often try to take all accidental gun deaths… Read more »
You mention suicide, which seems pretty obvious. But do the numbers show that guns in the home result in more homicides from domestic disputes turning lethal? Within my first month in LA, one of our neighbors who was a friend of my ex-husband pulled a gun on the drug dealer living next door. His wife called me, screaming for help. I had never seen a handgun in real life. I don’t remember what made him put the gun down, but I’m sure it wasn’t my timid and polite request! You can’t have shootouts in a crowded condo complex without hurting… Read more »
The studies aren’t large enough to pick out smaller details like that. Depending on the study, having a gun in the home was found to make having a homicide in the home anywhere from 1.6 times more likely to 3.0 times more likely than similar households where there was no gun. There are several potential reasons for this, but I think the most significant one is exactly the one you mention – domestic disputes become more deadly. A smaller influence is that interactions with strangers become more deadly. One Philadelphia study showed that mugging victims who were carrying a gun… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: One Philadelphia study showed that mugging victims who were carrying a gun were over five times more likely to be killed in the mugging than unarmed mugging victims – likely because their attempt to pull the gun led the mugger to escalate. Jonathan is probably referring to the Branas study. It wasn’t limited to muggings, but stipulated assault in general, and it wasn’t restricted to fatal shootings. It included nonfatal shootings as well. That study had a number of flaws. One is that it studied only shootings given an assault (a situation already loaded with higher risk). But,… Read more »
Yes, you’re right on one point, it was both fatal and non-fatal gun assaults, and not simply muggings, that were studied. The matching participant, for control purposes, was simply phoned at random. Branas assumed that since bullets can go through walls, everyone in Philadelphia was equally subject to being shot, but being shot (or not shot) in such a random event is not the same as being shot (or not shot) in an assault. So surveying random Philadelphians by phone is not a valid control. You are being quite unclear. What they actually did was pick a person at random… Read more »
I had written: It’s like saying that someone who has been in a helicopter accident while in possession of a flyswatter is 143 times more likely to be injured than someone not in possession of a flyswatter. And the guy who was not in possession of a flyswatter may or may not have been in a helicopter accident either. Such a study is practically meaningless. Then Jonathan wrote: Do you understand what you just said? If people injured in helicopter accidents really were 143 times more likely to be in possession of a flyswatter than the population at large, something… Read more »
Katecho, if you actually believe what you just said was equivalent to the Branas study, and that what I said was not, then it is clear that you completely failed to understand the study. Since you won’t trust me on this, please show the study to someone who works in that field so they can explain it to you. I already pointed out three false statements you made about the study. This is the fourth. No, the study did not compare armed people shot in assaults to all people not in assaults, the study compared the ratio of armed to… Read more »
Jonathan lobs another patronizing round of accusation and condescension before taking his ball. In any case, speaking of not being willing to yield, Jonathan failed to acknowledge his error regarding my helicopter and flyswatter example. Jonathan wrote: If people injured in helicopter accidents really were 143 times more likely to be in possession of a flyswatter than the population at large, something interesting is DEFINITELY going on with the possession of flyswatters in helicopters. The factor of 143 described likelihood of injury, not likelihood of flyswatter possession. Jonathan was simply wrong in his restatement. Since my example was a compound… Read more »
Consider yourself ignored from here on out – congrats, you’re only the second person I’ve ever had to resort to that with.
Welcome to the club, Katecho!
You were never blocked by 40 Acres? He blocked a few people in his time!
Sadly, I never earned that badge of honor from him. Then again, I’ve only interacted with him twice.
I got lots of threats but I think they were in fun. They generally followed some admission of wrongdoing from my liberal past–like knowing Martin Sheen!
Better Martin Sheen than Sean Penn; otherwise, he would have made good on his threats.
If the day comes that I find Sean Penn either interesting or attractive, please have me locked up.
Jonathan wrote: Gun control at the federal level would have a bigger effect (and likely even a positive effect on our neighbor to the south, which gets a lot of its guns from us), but it still would only be proportional. Gun restrictions at the federal level would certainly have the effect of further concentrating guns into violent hands. This effect is already demonstrated at more local levels. I hope Jonathan isn’t foolish enough to think that criminals obey gun laws, regardless of whether they are state or federal, or that guns are particularly difficult to make, or that black… Read more »
Jonathan did indeed write: Not only is the idea that guns in general make one safer against all evidence, I believe it to be contrary to the Gospels. Remember, this is the same bloke who once said that criminals commit less crime than the population at large. Let’s examine his claim about guns and the Gospels. Since guns weren’t invented in Jesus’ time, I would say the 1st century equivalent of a gun would be a sword. For all practical intents and purposes, the function of both weapons is the same. Luke 22:36: “He [Jesus] said to them, “But now… Read more »
To your verses, Matthew is clearly metaphorical and doesn’t really speak to the issue. Luke is highly debated amongst many Christians what Jesus actually was meaning here. While I think a scriptural case can be made for self defence, these aren’t the verses.
I wasn’t making the case for self-defense. I was speaking to Jonathan’s ignorant contention that guns in general are contrary to the Gospels. To keep Jonathan’s assertion from being more asinine than it already was (the issue of guns not having been invented when the Gospels were written), I granted the first-century equivalent, which is the sword. I’m not here to debate whether the sword was used in the metaphorical sense, which I’m not denying in the case of Matthew. Likewise, I don’t much care about the debate about what Jesus’ words “meant” in Luke because that debate is the… Read more »
I’m not a pacifist either, but I’m not sure Jonathan’s position is pure pacifism. It sounded to me as if he is willing to use non-lethal force whereas a really doctrinaire pacifist would not.
Of course we need to hold correct principles, but I expect my reaction in this situation would be instinctual rather than principled. When my daughter was a baby, I was surprised by the strength of those protective impulses.
I’m not sure Jonathan’s position is coherent. When Jonathan says things like guns in general are contrary to the Gospels, I take him at his word and respond accordingly. For the record, here is the definition of pacifism: 1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds 2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance For Christians, I don’t see any moral or religious grounds to be a pacifist. Military service, which necessarily requires weapons, is permissible by the Scriptures; otherwise every military officer encountered by Jesus… Read more »
I wish there were a middle ground in the definition for people who are willing to use force as long as it isn’t intended to be lethal. I agree with you that the NT doesn’t oppose swords and military service. This sounds dumb, but I don’t know enough about swords to know if they were exactly analogous to guns. Could you use a sword effectively without necessarily intending to kill the person? Was everybody armed so that a hostile encounter turned into a duel? I’m picturing Hamlet, so my idea of a scriptural sword may be all wrong! If I… Read more »
Jilly, I’m going to suggest that those willing to use force “as long as it is not lethal” simply be labeled incoherent. One of my pet peeves in life is this false idea that “force” is somehow benevolent, kind, and easy to control. You just set your phaser to stun and the bad guy falls under a gentle cloud of anesthesia.
I know, but wouldn’t it be nice if it were that easy?
I assume you’re referring to people like me, ME? I’ll ask you a question. Do you ever use force on your own child, out of love for them? Are you willing to kill your own child? Do you see the difference? Obviously, there is a such thing as benevolent and kind force. Does that mean the distinction is easy to make, or in all situations easy to control? No, neither I nor anyone else has implied that. I’ve seen terrible things done to children that parents thought were out of “love”, I’ve heard of terrible accidents occurring. Does that mean… Read more »
Jonathan writes: It took me over 10 years to come to a position of universal nonviolence, … Having wrapped himself in the pure white linen of nonviolence, one might be tempted to conclude that Jonathan really believes he has absolutized a passive nonviolent response. However, as I was saying, Jonathan’s previous attempts at this have been found wanting. Jonathan’s absolutized position needs some more time back in the oven. Jonathan wrote: A baseball bat would be a good idea only in the most extreme, last-option circumstances, and probably even in that case aimed at the weapon rather than the head.… Read more »
I appreciate your position, Jonathan. I’m not calling you a pacifist or declaring you don’t believe in self defense. I was responding to the incoherence of concepts like non lethal force. It’s incoherent because it’s trying to say something that isn’t true, it’s doublespeak.We live in a world were we have a lot of what I call soft violence. We don’t see the violence behind things like abortion or life in prison without parole. We arm cops, demand safety and protection, and yet judge them without mercy when real life doesn’t play out like our virtuous fantasies do. We hate… Read more »
In the general sense I agree with you. Our society has become a timid one, where more than eliminating violence, we desire to distance ourselves from it. And the hypocrisy you note, where we condemn the violence of those “others” who aren’t like us while supporting the violence of those who represent us, is well noted too. I just disagree that that any of that critique pertains much to actual “nonviolence” and those in Jesus who try to follow it. I know a lot of people who adhere to nonviolence and try to follow Jesus in that respect, and they… Read more »
This controversy made me think of John Piper (whom I seldom read), so I looked up the post he wrote in response to Jerry Falwell Jr.’s encouraging Liberty University students to be armed on campus. Then I read a sampling of articles, none of which agreed with him. Doug’s response was one of the most tolerant of Piper’s point of view, although he certainly disagreed with him. The article I found most thought-provoking said that Piper’s unwillingness to shoot an unsaved home-invading criminal, thereby sending him straight to hell, was the result of his Arminian and Anabaptist heritage. A Reformed… Read more »
I haven’t read into the root of Piper’s positions. It never surprises me when I see theologians come to that position, because it’s just so clear in so much of what Jesus says regardless of your denominational baggage. Nonviolence advocates I’ve already pointed out in this discussion include Methodist, Black Baptist, Southern Baptist, Mennonite, Orthodox, and Reformed theologians. I’ve met them among leadership in the Salvation Army, the Pentecostal movement, and the Catholic Church too, along with plenty of nondenominational evangelicals. One of my favorite nonviolent heroes of the 20th century, Andre Trocme, was a Reformed pastor. He wrote a… Read more »
Jilly, I never said swords are exactly analagous to guns; they’re different weapons with different strengths and weaknesses. However, the function of both is the same, which is to maim, kill, or injure; guns and swords are merely different tools that accomplish the same end. But that’s not their only purpose. A weapon is very useful for stopping bad guys. The question that people like Jonathan so desperately try to avoid is: What is the most effective way to stop a criminal aggressor, especially one with a gun? It’s not hard to answer, unless, like Jonathan, one never got his… Read more »
Thank you, I will read that.
It does not require it (if Jonathan wants to surrender his wife and children to a murdering rapist, for example), but the principle of turning the other cheek does not entail an abdication of all duty to protect the weak from harm, particularly as husbands and fathers, let alone faithful Christian officers. Jonathan’s attempt to absolutize a passive deference to violence was left extremely wanting. I have corrected you so many times on this point that I cannot consider this anything but willful deception. I do NOT support passive deference to violence. I NEVER have. I do NOT abdicate my… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: I do NOT support passive deference to violence. I NEVER have. I do NOT abdicate my duty to protect the weak from harm – in fact, I am CERTAIN that I go out of my way to do exactly that far more often than you do. I have never absolutized a “passive deference to violence”. I have NEVER suggested that passivity is a good thing at all. I am never passively deferential to violence. And I correct this point EVERY time the conversation comes up. You. Are. Lying. And I’m beyond sick of it. Your rhetorical games don’t… Read more »
Jonathan has categorically declared defensive gun ownership to be contrary to the Gospels, so if the murdering rapist comes for his wife and kids, what are Jonathan’s options? ….I’m not seeing any other options. Maybe Jonathan can come up with something else? Until then, his tantrums about me being a liar are just … more tantrums. The fact that you know so little about the options exposes that you haven’t thought about this issue much. I have many answers to this question. But before I taint the responses, I want to ask you this question, in complete seriousness. When someone… Read more »
I’m not seeing any other options. Maybe Jonathan can come up with something else? Until then, his tantrums about me being a liar are just … more tantrums. And so now that I do have options, and have stated them in past conversations on this blog before, and have made abundantly clear that I do NOT believe in a passive Christ and that I am NOT a passive responder to violence nor do I advocate such, does that take away your “tantrums” accusation? Depending on the type of violence the person appears to want to inflict, the person they want… Read more »
Oh dear. My California sensibilities have been eviscerated. You won’t use a gun to stop the Night Stalker if he pops through an open bedroom window, but you’ll use a gun to SHOOT BAMBI??
(I am teasing and not making a statement on the moral acceptability of hunting. Which is fine although I would rather not watch.)
Sadly, I actually have had people make that accusation to me. :P I think that animals are on a quite different moral plane that humans. The most debased human is still a child of God, still made in the image of God, still has a chance at redemption. Even murderous adulterers like David and murderous persecutors like Saul could find redemption, if we give them that chance. Bambi, on the other hand, is a beautiful part of God’s creation and a tasty roast in the right marinate. Especially now with deer overpopulation in significant portions of the country, a well-placed… Read more »
What are your thoughts about shooting animals such as giraffes for sport? (I am assuming that the meat will not be eaten, nor the pelt used for clothing.)
I understand the appeal, but it grates on me. I don’t even like trophy hunting for bucks, and the more “exotic” you get, the uglier the practitioners tend to be in their actions. There feels like a bit too much self-aggrandizement in it, and in a lot of cases disrespect for the animal. Not that there aren’t “good” trophy hunters, but there are an awful lot of bad ones. Not to mention that it’s a misuse and disrespect of God’s creation. God created an incredible creature there, and you’re going to kill it….just so you can take pictures, say you… Read more »
I find it very difficult to comprehend the impulse. It seems to me that less skill is required now than in the past, and that the hunt has become less risky for the hunter. This makes it harder for me to see beauty in the hunt, even in theory. But although my instincts recoil from shooting animals purely for sport, I recognize that selling hunting licenses is an important source of income for some very poor people in developing nations. And, as you point out, there are resource management issues that require some animals to be killed.
The amount of skill required varies tremendously depending on where you are and what you’re looking for. Shooting a trophy buck in the West can be incredibly skillful. Older bucks don’t get that way by being stupid, their population density isn’t very high, they can live in some very difficult terrain, etc. The work it takes to scout out an area to the point where you know where the deer could be, to understand its behavior well enough to know when it will be where, to get to where you need to be without the deer knowing you’re there, to… Read more »
I know. I was thinking of the second type of hunting when I talked about less skill and risk being required. The shooting fish in a barrel kind of hunting.
On the topic of gun ownership and defense, the heart of the debate is to recognize that there are certain situations where violent crimes will progress unless lethal interference is brought to bear. In other words, passive resistance and non-lethal options are sometimes exhausted. I’m sure that everyone is grateful that Al Gore invented the internet, and that Jonathan invented non-lethal resistance for us, but Jonathan’s list of passive resistance scenarios entirely misses the focus of the debate. To illustrate this, remember that, while he was supposed to be responding to the murderous rapist scenario, Jonathan wrote that one of… Read more »
To illustrate this, remember that, while he was supposed to be responding to the murderous rapist scenario, Jonathan wrote that one of his options would be to: Katecho, your continued ridiculous rhetoric has no place in a discussion among Christians. This is the epitome of a foolish and stupid argument that breeds quarrels. I was NOT referring to the murderous rapist scenario in that line, I specifically prefaced my list with: Depending on the type of violence the person appears to want to inflict, the person they want to target with that violence, your relationship with the potentially violent person,… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: For you to tie my answer to your silly, meaningless hypothetical situation, a situation that neither you nor I have ever experienced nor likely ever will, is deceptive and argumentative. My earlier question was an attempt to get Jonathan to address a situation where only lethal force would stop further life-consuming violence. Jonathan chose to regale us with tales of his bravery in situations that didn’t require immediate lethal intervention. That’s nice, but other than demonstrating how pious Jonathan is, it wasn’t responsive to the heart of the question of gun use before us. Jonathan wrote: I was… Read more »
“Jonathan’s attempt to absolutize a passive deference to violence was left extremely wanting.”
I don’t think absoutuze a passive deference to violence is an accurate summary of Jonathans position.
Thank you Christopher. It means quite a bit to me when I see someone who often disagrees with someone still defend them when warranted. I will certainly remember that.
On that note – Jonathan, you did mention one option (you have actually used?) is to tackle an assailant. Is that not an act of violence? I have no problem with that, but it appears to me to be evidence from your own statements that indeed you do not make an absolute of passive deference to violence, which is another way of saying non-violence is not an absolute. No? There reasonable question would be why can you tackle a person, but not, say, punch them, to stop a violent attack? Where is the line drawn? Is it an *intentionally* lethal… Read more »
On that note – Jonathan, you did mention one option (you have actually used?) is to tackle an assailant. Is that not an act of violence? I have no problem with that, but it appears to me to be evidence from your own statements that indeed you do not make an absolute of passive deference to violence, which is another way of saying non-violence is not an absolute. No? To be clear, I never would want to take an English word and make an absolute of it. My attempt is always to follow the God of Jesus Christ in everything.… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: To be clear, I never would want to take an English word and make an absolute of it. (“Never”? Jonathan just used an English word to make another absolute claim.) Let’s not forget that Jonathan claimed how it had taken him “over 10 years to come to a position of universal nonviolence”. Those were his absolutizing words. But when obvious holes were pointed out in Jonathan’s actual practice, Jonathan walked it back by saying that his violence is not really violence, but force. He excuses his defensive actions by assuring us that they are motivated by love and… Read more »
Casey wrote: I don’t think absoutuze a passive deference to violence is an accurate summary of Jonathans position. I agree, which is why I said that Jonathan was having a tough time holding it together on inspection. Jonathan likes to describe his position as “universal nonviolence”, and he seems to delight in sharing all manner of irrelevant scenarios where his passive resistance can be employed. However, there is that matter of the baseball bat, and calling the armed police. When confronted on these inconsistencies, he gets really defensive and starts to berate and backpeddle. He will say that the baseball… Read more »
“I agree, which is why I said that Jonathan was having a tough time holding it together on inspection.” Since it’s a position he doesn’t hold, why would he be trying to hold it together? “Jonathan likes to describe his position as “universal nonviolence”, and he seems to delight in sharing all manner of irrelevant scenarios where his passive resistance can be employed.” From what I recall of his scenarios Jonathan advocates nonvolent resistance not passive resistance. “Where I take issue is when Jonathan behaves like a bully, calling Wilson deceptive without cause, and declaring that guns, in general, are… Read more »
Casey wrote: Since it’s a position he doesn’t hold, why would he be trying to hold it together? Jonathan has described his position as “universal nonviolence”. That doesn’t hold up to basic inquiry. As I’ve said, he’s trying to have it both ways. I don’t say that he’s successful in the attempt. Casey wrote: From what I recall of his scenarios Jonathan advocates nonvolent resistance not passive resistance. Passive resistance is nonviolent resistance (except for that baseball bat, and calling the armed police). Casey wrote: Jonathan enjoys hunting so he’s not against guns in general. Casey should recall that Jonathan… Read more »
“Passive resistance is nonviolent resistance (except for that baseball bat, and calling the armed police).”
Well all passive reistance is nonviolent but not all nonviolent reistance is passive.
This is likely a reference to “live by the sword, die by the sword”
It sounds to me more like
‘Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.’
“I disagree.”
With one or both of the quoted statements?
What did you intend to accomplish with saying Jonathan was attempting to absolutize passive deference?
Thank you again Christopher. Every statement you made is absolutely true. I don’t think Katecho actually cares what my position is, though, or he wouldn’t keep misrepresenting it. If he did care, he would have accepted my clear assurances made to him repeatedly over the years that I don’t think Christ was passive, I don’t think Christians are passive, and I am not passive. I have never used the word “passive” at any point in my life to describe my own position. I even try to avoid “pacifist”, even though that’s a completely different word, just because some people confuse… Read more »
“I don’t think Katecho actually cares what my position is, though, or he wouldn’t keep misrepresenting it.”
Katecho said you described your position as ‘universal nonviolence’
what do you mean by that?
In the context of the statement I made, I was trying to explain that it took a while for me to accept what Jesus was saying as something that applied universally. That it was not something for which I could justify particular exceptions, like resort to killing or war “sometimes”. From early on in my Christian walk the New Covenant’s orientation towards nonviolence was very clear. But I struggled with the idea because I wanted to believe there could be “some” situations where the death penalty was okay, “some” situations where war was okay, “some” situations where you could kill… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Yep. Right now California has the 9th-lowest gun ownership rate in the United States, and the 8th-lowest gun death rate. Those numbers are so similar across all the states that it’s hard to believe the correlation isn’t clear. Speaking of deceptive statistics, Jonathan focuses on homicide and doesn’t mention that California is ranked 14th highest in firearm violence with 3.4 crimes per 1000, according to BJS. By state, the map of highest gun ownership rate strongly corresponds with lowest firearm violence rates. I wonder why Jonathan didn’t mention this fact as he railed against Wilson for deceptive statistics?… Read more »
Speaking of deceptive statistics, Jonathan focuses on homicide and doesn’t mention that California is ranked 14th highest in firearm violence with 3.4 crimes per 1000, according to BJS. By state, the map of highest gun ownership rate strongly corresponds with lowest firearm violence rates. I wonder why Jonathan didn’t mention this fact as he railed against Wilson for deceptive statistics? If you actually know your way around this topic, you already know why it is extremely difficult to compare non-murder crime statistics across state lines – different states simply treat acts differently, and define different things as crimes. I I… Read more »
jillybean wrote: It would be hard to imagine that life in the urban core would be safer if we could just bring in more guns. It would also be hard to imagine that life in the urban core would be safer if we could just bring in more gas water heaters. But this tells us nothing about whether more guns or water heaters should be lawfully allowed there. Also, contrary to jillybean’s apparent need to misrepresent, we are not suggesting that simply adding more guns to the landscape is productive. It depends on who would be getting those guns, and… Read more »
I think that accusing me of misrepresentation (not, I notice, even allowing for the possibility of innocent representation, but attributing to me an “apparent need” to knowingly tell lies) is offensive. I have never accused you of deliberate misrepresentation, and I would need to understand both your level of knowledge and your motives before I would accuse you of dealing in bad faith. I did not question anyone’s right to own weapons. I did not question the right of self-defense. I did not challenge the Second Amendment. I said, as someone living in a dense and gang-infested urban core, that… Read more »
The deliberate misrepresentation was in jillybean’s implication that anyone is simply calling for more guns to be dropped into the scene. That was a nonsense statement that has become far too typical of jillybean lately. jillybean wrote: The incident I described to Jonathan was of a law-abiding citizen who pulled a gun on an unarmed drug dealer who had insulted his wife. Here jillybean is trying to muddy the water of what constitutes law-abiding, defensive use, versus aggressive use and brandishing of a weapon. If jillybean is not going to allow herself or anyone else to make distinctions regarding actual… Read more »
I have reread my initial post carefully. I said nothing that justifies you in accusing me of deliberate deception–an accusation you double down on by saying it is my habit lately. You are reacting as if I had said that every gun owner is a murderous thug who should be disarmed by force. Respond to what I actually wrote and not to what you apparently interpret as some sinister agenda. Did I say, “Anyone who thinks more guns on the streets of South Central would be a great idea is a moron?” Did I say, “Gun owners are all the… Read more »
jillybean wrote: Call me the dupe of liberal propaganda and a perfect example of what the California lifestyle does to a once functional brain, and I will maintain my usual good nature. But do not accuse me of deceit or deliberate misrepresentation unless you have proof. Disliking my views, my principles, and the way I express myself does not give you the right to impugn my integrity. I pointed out jillybean’s unhelpful misrepresentation of creationists with her recent remarks about “Dr. Dino”. I thought she had acknowledged that unhelpful characterization since then, but perhaps not. Now jillybean has misrepresented the… Read more »
I think we need to offer Jill a bit more charity here. Point out clearly where you think she is wrong. But she is reading “misrepresenting” to mean deliberately deceitful, whereas you seem to be using it to say she is repeating (even innocently) an incorrect fact.
Naive perhaps, but I imagine that Jill has the type of honest nature that returns paperclips to the office.
Jillybean is generally sweet natured, and gets a lot of charity and grace for incorrect statements, but I was focused on specific instances of a more active mischaracterization on her part. Those are counterproductive.
Those are counterproductive.
Yes, as can be intemperate words.
And Jill is old enough to be my mother, so 1 Timothy 5:2 comes in to play, at least for me.
:)
Well, maybe Katecho is just being offensive, or maybe he found the ‘infected part’ and is pushing on it to see how bad it is. Faithful are the wounds of a friend….It always makes me wonder when someone who is overly cordial and sweet-natured starts to get offended. Maybe the arrow hit the mark?
When someone is mocked four times in four paragraphs, accusing of misrepresenting the facts twice, and then has that statement doubled-down on by being accursed of “active mischaracterization” rather than an innocent mistake, I have a hard time judging them for feeling offended.
Hey, you’re the boss. You tell me how it is.
I think that even ordinarily good-natured people are offended by accusations of dishonesty. I don’t mind in the least when people find my comments stupid or wrongheaded or naive. I do mind being accused of conscious deceptiveness, and I’m not sure that anyone who cares about personal honesty and integrity wouldn’t feel the same way.
Okay, integrity and personal honesty are off limits then. :)
Unless you have evidence that I deliberately lied–then it’s fair game!
Peace to you.
bethyada wrote: And Jill is old enough to be my mother, so 1 Timothy 5:2 comes in to play, at least for me. I understand the caution. It’s important to keep it front and center. But there are also passages in Scripture warning about partiality that we need to keep in mind also. Wilson has recently written about the cultural trend for men to show partiality to women (and to their own wives) in a way that isn’t actually loving to them. Jillybean has a definite agenda in her characterizations of conservatives, Protestants, creationists, etc., etc. She’s not bashful about… Read more »
I don’t expect, nor would I welcome, kid glove treatment. I am old, but I am tough when it comes to tolerating opposition to my ideas. If I wanted nothing but agreement, I would not have continued to post here. But I disagree with you that my opinions constitute an agenda, other than sometimes to point out what I see as legitimate but opposing points of view, and to question statements of fact that seem incorrect to me or arguments that strike me as flawed. I have sometimes disagreed with you that your interpretation of doctrine is universally held among… Read more »
jillybean wrote: My being Catholic does not lead me to rabid partisanship, and even if it did, I would not be so discourteous as to come here for the purpose of trolling Protestants. Perhaps it’s a good thing that I didn’t accuse jilybean of rabid partisanship, or trolling, or attacking. We wouldn’t want to mischaracterize what actually happened, right? jillybean wrote: I acknowledged that you had a point in my handling of creationist evidence in that I was selecting ludicrous arguments and presenting them as typical. I appreciated that correction because I had not consciously realized I was using unfair… Read more »
“If overwhelming segments of the population are violent gangs, adding guns obviously only makes the aggression problem worse.”
I actually question that. I think part of the problem is that the majority of guns are illegally in the hands of people who think they have been deemed unworthy to carry them, and therefore not really responsible for how they are used either.
No one ever agrees with me, but send the gang bangers to fire arms training, assign them all a legal gun, and tell them they’re in charge of protecting their communities.
I don’t think they care about protecting their communities. These are people who fire bullets into cars not caring that their target is surrounded by kids in car seats. These are people who have been known to use their own kids as a defensive shield. I think that a drug dealer doesn’t behave irresponsibly with his AK-47 because he has been deemed unworthy. I think he shoots at people because he wants them dead for reasons of business, status, or revenge, and he doesn’t necessarily worry about collateral damage. Not all gang bangers are murderous drug dealers, but none of… Read more »
They are simply doing what guys have been doing since the dawn of time, trying to protect their turf and acquire influence and power. We don’t have a gun problem, we have a psychology problem.
To make matters worse we have lots of absent fathers, so no one ever taught them how to be men, and then we have a system that disempowers them even more, and an economy that makes selling drugs about the only entrepreneurial opportunity available to you.
You’re not disarming any gang bangers with your gun laws. That’s laughable.
I agree that the gun laws don’t disarm the criminals. They do, however, allow for major penalty enhancements that get them off the street and into prison. And preventing ordinary people from carrying guns in gang neighborhoods probably reduces the number of victims caught in the crossfire. Absent fathers is a huge problem. There’s actually a serious problem with absent mothers as well. Kids arriving from Central America in search of the mothers who left them behind long ago are easy pickings for the gangs. I agree that drug dealing is perhaps the most immediately lucrative activity, but it is… Read more »
You don’t have to increase the restrictions on the owning and bearing of guns to create penalty enhancements for gun crimes. Pennsylvania passed a provision decades ago so that using a gun in a crime augmented the penalty by a certain amount. If guns are a problem in crimes, then address gun crime, not mere ownership or bearing of guns (beyond responsible restrictions on people who have earned being restricted).
I don’t think we can address crime without addressing gun ownership as it is in the U.S. Are you a “gun person”? I am, a little bit. I like firearms. I grew up rural and they were part of life even as a kid. I own several. Because I am a little, I know people who are a lot. There are firearm enthusiasts, and then there are firearm fetishists. Lots of them in this country. As a result of the gun cult in America part of the difficulty in controlling gun crimes is just the sheer number of guns in… Read more »
JohnM wrote: There are firearm enthusiasts, and then there are firearm fetishists. This is a valid observation and distinction. I see no reason to defend chest thumping machismo while arguing for the principle of gun ownership for defense. As with neon pink hair, the guy who is building a private arsenal should set off a warning bell to his friends and his pastor. Do I mean that we should jump to conclusions about him? No. Just that it should trigger a deeper inquiry, for his own sake as well as for others, to see if there is evidence of a… Read more »
It sounds like we’re two birds of a feather here.
I’ve never fired or handled a gun, however all my kids have and I eagerly allow relatives to teach them appropriate use of them. I’m simply responding to the logic of the point that we need to make more things about guns illegal so that we can punish people harder when they use them in crimes. We don’t — we can simply punish them harder when they use them in crimes, as such, making the crime itself and the *use* of the gun, not the possession of the gun, the basis for the punishment.
“I can work up sympathy for almost anyone if I try hard enough, but violent drug dealers are beyond my capability. They do too much damage.”
Something you might want to keep in mind, drugs never enter a community without higher ups deliberately bringing them in. I can understand violent offenders, but those with the wealth and means to set up and exploit the poor, that’s a tough one for me to accept.
You see the same thing in rural areas, drugs are always introduced.
No, gun laws won’t disarm gang bangers, but gun law enforcement would.
It doesn’t make much sense to me. After you murder someone we’re going to tack on a gun violation charge?
Do people who are willing to commit murder ever check first to make sure their paper work is in order so they don’t get in trouble?
“After you murder someone we’re going to tack on a gun violation charge?” No, before you murder someone we’re going to lock you up if you are discovered in possession when you weren’t supposed to be. Before, or after, we’re going to lock up anyone found to have placed you in possession or found to have ignored gun laws designed to make it less likely you would end up in possession. We’re going to do that often enough that it becomes a deterrent. Or if it’s not that at least violators will not be so free to continue with their… Read more »
“No, before you murder someone we’re going to lock you up if you are discovered in possession when you weren’t supposed to be.”
So like, just scratch the whole 4th amendment and start pre-emptively searching people without cause to see if they have illegal firearms?
So why don’t we just open up a pre-crime unit and start scanning people’s eyeballs too?
No, there has to be probable cause for the police to stop and frisk. They can’t search you for no reason at all unless you consent. Lawyers have told me that many ordinary people don’t realize that they don’t have to consent to searches when the police ask for permission.
I don’t know if the law is different when the police know someone is on parole. I’m not sure if they still need reasonable cause to do a search.
No, like, scratch non-sequiturs.
Suppose a gang banger is caught dealing drugs on the street corner. What might be a 2 year sentence (assuming he’s already got a record) will be much longer if he is found to be carrying a gun. If he carjacks with a gun, he will do really serious prison time. Simply being in possession of a gun in public is against the law in LA unless you have a permit, and hardly anyone can get one. So if the cops want to get gang bangers out of a neighborhood, they can use possession of a firearm without having to… Read more »
So you’re going to just build more prisons and lock all the scary people up for life with no chance of parole?
Not trying to be impolite Jilly, I just really don’t like your somewhat “utopian” vision for the world. It scares me.
No, I don’t actually like the idea of life without parole. I think there are some people who are too dangerous probably ever to get parole, but normally I think there should be a chance. I was explaining how it worked, not necessarily what I think should be done. In California getting LWOP-ed usually implies a conviction for first degree murder. It can also occur after a third criminal conviction (the notorious Three Strikes Law), but I don’t much like that unless all three convictions are for very serious crimes. That being said, I do think that violent drug dealers… Read more »
No, I think the most effective gun laws are those which target straw purchases, the black market, illegal transfer of guns into criminal hands, etc. The majority of guns used in crime involve a “legal” purchase, and a large percentage of those are followed by a technically “illegal” transfer. However, the NRA has ensured that gun regulation is such that prosecuting such illegal transfers is virtually impossible. Register all gun transfers and require background checks and waiting periods on all transfers. That would make illegal transfers prosecutable, as well as likely decreasing impulsive suicides and some crimes of passion. Limit… Read more »
We register people not guns. You get a gun licence like you get a driver’s licence.
There are three issues with that here. 1. American culture (and in most interpretations, Constitutional law) demands that one be allowed to own a gun unless proven otherwise. So even if we began issuing gun licences, they would/should be given to just about anyone who can legally own a gun now anyway. 2. The issue is guns getting into the hands of people who don’t have those licenses. Someone with a license could still get a gun into the hands of someone without a license if the guns aren’t being registered. 3. Registration of individual guns simply makes gun crimes… Read more »
The straw purchases that you mention do play a major role in placing firearms in the hands of criminals. You’ll read that armed criminals didn’t get their guns from legal sources, but from friends, family, associates, etc. Often this point is made in the assumption that it is a valid critique of gun laws. However, none of those people who supplied the criminal were manufacturers, so at some point someone did legally sell the guns to someone, but someone on false pretext illegally bought them and illegally transferred possession. Of course it possible the person who *legally* sold the gun… Read more »
Thanks for the affirmation, and I agree.
For me though, the simplicity and consistency of regulating all guns in the same manner is more appealing than playing to the fact that handguns are somewhat more desirable to criminals than longguns. None of the measures I suggest would hamper any law-abiding gun owner from acquiring a large number of rifles and shotguns and muzzleloaders, so I think it would be fine to apply the laws to those guns as well.
What experience do you have with disarming gangbangers? At different times in the last 40 years, the average number of gangbangers armed at any one time, at least in Los Angeles gangs, has varied dramatically. Do you know why?
I don’t know why. Are you talking about handguns or assault rifles (which I associate more with cartel members, but I may be wrong). Would it be that a lot of the gang members have criminal records, making legal gun ownership impossible?
Well, obviously, gun ownership isn’t “impossible” for someone with a criminal record, it just means that they’ll have to acquire the gun illegally. It can add to the roadblocks though. I don’t have a complete grasp on the issue, but from what I understand, the largest issues leading to variance in how many guns were being held by any particular gang were money, culture, and enemies. At times when the street supply was lower and the average gangbanger poorer, there were a lot fewer guns in the gang because the average gangbanger simply couldn’t afford it, or didn’t feel it… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Pastor Wilson, you’re using openly deceptive statistics yet again. Openly deceptive? The article/report openly states that it is trying to deceive the reader? Are we supposed to take Jonathan seriously? Jonathan wrote: Did you not notice that the map of counties in your article is almost a perfect match for a map of US population? What makes Jonathan think that Wilson is ignorant of population distribution factors, especially since this is noted explicitly in the report included in the page that Wilson referenced? Did Jonathan actually even read the report? It says: The worst 1% of counties have… Read more »
I checked for myself and saw that California’s 2015 per capita homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000. It ranked twentieth, after states like North Carolina, Delaware, Alaska, and Missouri, some of which have less restrictive gun control laws. Without getting into whether a government has the right to impose any limits on gun ownership, I wondered whether you think California’s lower homicide rate, particularly in view of the size of its cities, is related to its no-carry laws.
jillybean wrote: I wondered whether you think California’s lower homicide rate, particularly in view of the size of its cities, is related to its no-carry laws. No. I see no warrant for such a conclusion. For example, Maryland is ranked just below California in terms of gun ownership per household, but they have a homicide rate twice as high as California’s. Also, regardless of any no-carry laws, over 21% of Californian households contain guns anyway (and that’s if you believe voluntary anonymous self-reporting to a phone survey is not going to skew low). No-carry laws are even less of an… Read more »
No-carry laws are even less of an indicator than the population density theory that Jonathan offered. I completely agree that no-carry laws are basically irrelevant to crime. Other than one particularly fraudulent researcher (mocked even by others in the pro-gun carry community), the general consensus of the research is that there is no relationship at all between allowing concealed carry and crime rates. It doesn’t create crime, it doesn’t prevent crime. Among other things, that’s probably in large part because carry laws have a minimal effect on the number of people carrying (if I remember correctly, a typical result of… Read more »
Are those homicide rates all homicide or shootings only?
A good question, and I slipped up in not checking that out! I will revisit it and return.
Openly deceptive? The article/report openly states that it is trying to deceive the reader? Are we supposed to take Jonathan seriously? Do you ever tire of playing rhetoric games in all your comments? Everyone else does. You know that’s not what “openly deceptive” means. If you really need an example, I can refer you to highly-regarded NSA alum using the word the exact same way I just used it. When you stop using words for communication, and start using them for attempted “Gotcha!” moments, you cease to be a meaningful communicator. What makes Jonathan think that Wilson is ignorant of… Read more »
Jonathan appears to be in denial that the report explicitly references population distribution. Since it does, the basis for Jonathan’s accusation of deception has long since run off and left him. Jonathan wrote: The fact that you want to use this ambiguous elephant to attack me, rather than, you know, actually naming and discussing it, shows that it’s just another game. Attack? How melodramatic. More like an invitation to discuss the very point that Wilson originally made, that gun restriction doesn’t seem to be delivering on its promise. Somehow I’m not surprised that this elephant is invisible to Jonathan though.… Read more »
Because population density has an enormous effect on crime rates, something you seem to still not have understood about the original point.
Jonathan wrote:
I’m not sure that Jonathan is in a position to lecture me, or anyone, on the original point.
Wilson said:
Jonathan seems to have conceded Wilson’s original point that gun restrictions in the big city aren’t the solution. Maybe Jonathan should apologize to Wilson, and refrain from overreacting in the future.