ADVERTISEMENT

Pray for the people that got shot praying.

It's a waste of time to continue pressing facts instead of puff piece essays, but here ya go:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...uld-stem-the-rising-threat-of-mass-shootings/
And then you present a puff piece essay. Lol.

But I'll bite. This one is at least well written. I agree with some of it, the pieces that don't whiff on reality.

-Require permits to purchase:
I don't disagree with the concept, but as presented there's a glaring hole. "Permit-to-purchase laws could circumvent this issue because local law enforcement has direct access to details about criminal history." Where exactly does the author think local law enforcement gets information? Yep, it's the NCIC, which is the same database that the Air Force failed to input information to. If the data doesn't get into it, it's simply not there. Unless Devin Kelley was trying to get a permit to purchase from the Air Force, this one is a dud.

—Ban individuals convicted of any violent crime from gun purchase
I can mostly agree with this. Are we talking felony conviction or any conviction? If we're talking any conviction, I'm on board as long as we extend it to voting as well. People who commit crimes are idiots and idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Maybe we should just expand it to any conviction for anything not traffic related.

—Make all serious domestic violence offenders surrender firearms
I agree completely.

—Temporarily ban active alcohol abusers from firearms

Lots of questions about this one starting with what is "temporary?" Who keeps the guns during the temporary ban? Plenty of folks binge drink and don't get DUIs. What about those people? Maybe expand it to any alcohol related offense? Or maybe we keep a database of alcohol purchases for everyone and anyone who buys more than a certain amount has to turn over their firearms for a period of time?

Thanks for posting this puff piece essay syskatine. Good read.
 

4810144.jpg
 
I gotta hand it to you guys. Political affiliations, whether Australia had a single mass shooting in the last 20 years, whether France has had any mass shootings, lawyers.... it's amazing how you can deflect and throw shit at the wall -- anything but discuss how a moron got an assault rifle and killed a ton of innocent people.

Some of you like knowing that the biggest losers have the ability to walk into a building and kill 20 people in a flash. It's a great equalizer, huh? No matter how much of a loser some guy is, he can always take out his betters.

Yeah mega, more guns is the answer. We're getting closer to a third world shithole -- let's take guns to churches, to concerts, at schools, Dr's offices,

to movies, let's just militarize everything. Like Somalia. Or we could do like most other modern, enlighten democracies. Nah. Hell my mechanic crawled out from under a car the other day with a glock on his belt, just in case of something.



I'm flattered.
Do you actually think that more laws will stop mass shootings from happening? Do you think that they’re just going to go away?
 
Isn't Jesus all powerful and 100% in control.
I think, for the most part, Christians would agree that God is all-powerful. However, God does limit the exercise of that power sometimes. Example: Christ limited His power/ability to remove Himself from the cross. Indeed, Christ limited the exercise of His power rather often during His earthly ministry.

As for 100% in control, here there is some disagreement among Christians. For example, an open theist is not going to answer this question the same way that a classical theist would. Also, Protestant Calvinists and Protestant Arminians are going to differ on this too. Essentially, how one reconciles the mystery (or if they even try) of free will and God's sovereignty will influence how one views whether God is 100% in control.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT