News & Current Events
bkmitchell — 2017-11-05T17:18:28-05:00 — #1
will_scholten — 2017-11-05T18:41:00-05:00 — #2
Thanks for posting this BK!
We need to be in prayer for these families, and for all the other families that are hurting.
We also need to be in prayer, for everything going on and the sick people that are behind all this.
bill_coley — 2017-11-05T18:55:30-05:00 — #3
Another twenty-six Americans are dead today, and others are injured, from another mass shooting, this time in a church.
The governor of Texas says that 26 is "too many" to be dead in a mass shooting.... Profound. He also recommends that parents embrace their children and communicate love for them.... Why didn't WE think of that?
On one news channel, the talk is of the need for "increased security at houses of worship...." Armed deacons. That should do it.
But until we get .38s in the offering plates, will someone please explain to me why we - particularly our political leaders - seem so much more alarmed by deaths caused by "terrorist" attacks than those caused by mass shootings, when mass shootings - not to mention gun violence writ large - kill FAR more Americans every years than do terror attacks. For example, please explain why the first tweet from the president of the United States after the recent New York terror attack that killed eight was this...
NYC terrorist was happy as he asked to hang ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8 people, badly injured 12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!
So the president had the shooter convicted and sentenced shortly after the shooting. But the president's first tweets after the Las Vegas shooting (59 dead) and the Texas shooting (26 dead) were these, respectively...
My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!
May God be w/ the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas. The FBI & law enforcement are on the scene. I am monitoring the situation from Japan.
In addition, the president said the Las Vegas shooter had his "wires crossed," while the NYC driver was "an animal."
If eight dead is terrible and calls for action (vetting that's more extreme, and the ending of a particular program within our immigration system, the president said) why don't 59 dead and 26 dead each call for action, too? Yet all the president said after the Las Vegas shooting was that it wasn't time to talk about policy. Apparently, it hasn't been time to talk about policy in the nearly five weeks since the Vegas carnage. It's NEVER time to talk about policy... unless the carnage comes at the hands of someone they call a "terrorist." Please explain.
gao_lu — 2017-11-05T20:44:58-05:00 — #4
Rather than immediately politicizing this, how about some compassion and love and prayers and hope. For an alleged funeral preacher--where is love and compassion and hope and reassurance? Can you teach us?
bill_coley — 2017-11-05T23:26:59-05:00 — #5
If wanting our political leaders to do more than express "some compassion and love and prayers and hope" is "politicizing" the Texas shooting, then you can expect me to politicize the Texas shooting.
As for "immediately" doing so - assuming that by "politicizing" it you mean wanting our political leaders to do more than express "some compassion and...." - how long do you believe we should wait after a mass shooting before we "politicize" it? For example, nearly five weeks have passed since 59 people died in Las Vegas. In your view, is it appropriate for people to "politicize" that shooting yet?
The point of my post, Gao Lu, was that "compassion and love and prayers and hope" are all our political leaders ever give us, and in my view, are not enough. Given the history of mass shootings in the U.S. are you satisfied with the results of past expressions of "compassion and love and prayers and hope"? If "politicizing" mass shootings means calling on our political leaders to do more than express "some compassion and..." do you think Americans should EVER "politicize" them"? Or do you believe the only action we should take against mass shootings is to express "some compassion and love and prayers and hope" in their aftermaths?
I don't know of anyone who "alleges" that I am a funeral preacher. Perhaps you make such an allegation? [For the record, I have written/conducted 558 funerals, so I guess that makes me a "funeral preacher."]
There will be no shortage of love and compassion for the families and friends of the dead and injured in Texas; there never is a shortage of love and compassion in mass shootings. Given our national refusal to address the incidence and severity of mass shootings in the U.S. however, there IS a shortage of hope and reassurance for the nation writ large. It's hard to have hope when we refuse to do ANYTHING to stem the variety, capacity, and number of firearms available to the public, or to enhance our knowledge of the the backgrounds of those who own them.
I'm reminded of Exodus 14.10-18, which reports Pharaoh and his army's approach on Moses and the freed slaves. The people complain vociferously to Moses, complaints to which Moses responds with the reassurance that "The Lord will fight for you, and all you have to do is be silent." (Exodus 14.14) God responds to Moses' claim with this...
15 The LORD said to Moses, “Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward. 16 Lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go through the sea on dry ground. 17 And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen. 18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ex 14:15–18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
In effect, Moses tells the people that all they have to do to solve their crisis is to express "some compassion and love and prayers and hope." God rejects Moses' solution out of hand and tells him that he and his people are a necessary part of the solution. If God is to act, the people must act.
In my view, if God is going to act to diminish our mass shooting crisis, we must act - and do more than express "some compassion and love and prayers and hope."
gao_lu — 2017-11-05T23:29:10-05:00 — #6
In short: Shame on you.
bill_coley — 2017-11-06T00:45:17-05:00 — #7
Thoughtful and well-said. Thank you for sharing your views.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-06T07:29:57-05:00 — #8
I'd suggest to start by getting rid of the Hollywood liberal green left junk food, TV networks brainwashing libertarian soap stuff and electing and supporting those who would like to drain the swamp.
Instead, unfortunately, many scream and yell and do their utmost to undermine and oppose those who dare think about draining the swamp, and instead support a false liberty, a false democracy, and appease as slaves their globalist morally decayed and Satan worshiping masters
gao_lu — 2017-11-06T09:06:51-05:00 — #9
Colorfully and well said!
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-06T10:06:23-05:00 — #10
This is a disgusting comment. Who says they are more alarmed by terrorist attacks than this? Just disgusting. Of course you would politicize this less than 24 hours after the event. Just like a liberal. You should be ashamed.
And comparing the tweets is just idiotic.
Apples and Oranges. The terror attack could have been prevented within the Constitution. The others the regulations you and other liberals suggest would not have stopped the attack.
Because Gun control does not work as we have already discussed.
bill_coley — 2017-11-06T12:02:03-05:00 — #11
Thanks for sharing your views.
In my view, the presidential tweets, my comparison of which you artfully call "just idiotic," say the president is alarmed more by terrorist attacks than by attacks such as yesterday's.
- The Las Vegas shooter had his "wires crossed"
- The Texas shooter's actions reflected the "mental health" issues of a man who "had a lot of problems over a long period of time" (not from a tweet, but from the president's press availability with the Japanese prime minister)
- But the NYC driver was "an animal" who deserves the death penalty
And all of those judgments and conclusions from a president who after the Charlottesville domestic terror attack demurred from substantive comment because he "wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what (he) said was correct, not make a quick statement."
Within 24 hours of the NYC attack, President Trump called the Diversity Visa Lottery Program, through which the attacker had entered the country eight years ago, "a Chuck Schumer beauty." Did you condemn the president's obvious politicization of that tragedy as being "just like a liberal," too?
Thoughtful and well-said. Thank you for sharing your views.
Am I correct to infer that you don't believe mass shootings can be "prevented within the Constitution"? If I am correct, does that mean your view is we just have to accept mass shootings as a fact of American life... unless we change the Constitution? Or do you have ideas short of changing the Constitution that would stop such attacks?
It "hasn't been time to talk about policy [to reduce mass shootings] in the nearly five weeks since the Vegas carnage" because, in your view, gun control does not work? Since, I assume, it is your view that gun control will NEVER work, does that mean that in your view it will NEVER be time to talk about policy to reduce mass shootings?
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-06T12:06:35-05:00 — #12
I don't see it that way at all. I see it as he recognizes that the terrorist attack could have been prevented.
I would hardly call Charlottesville a domestic terror attack.
There is a difference between politicizaton of an event and statement of fact. It is a fact that the terror attack in NYC could have been prevented if that program was not in place.
Have to change the culture. We have been over this before.
I assume when you talk about policy you are talking about gun control. If that is the case, then yes, it is never the time to talk about policy unless you are reducing gun restrictions.
bill_coley — 2017-11-06T12:39:04-05:00 — #13
What about the president's characterization of the Texas shooter's "mental health" issues and of the NYC attacker as "an animal" tells you that he "recognizes the terrorist attack could have been prevented"?
What is an act of "terror"? I define it as an unlawful action - usually violent - taken to incite fear (terror) or intimidation in pursuit political outcomes or fueled by political agenda. I don't think there is any doubt that the Charlottesville killer's plowing through counter protesters was fueled by his to incite fear among them.
The "politicization" of the NYC attack to which I pointed was the president's use of the phrase "a Chuck Schumer beauty" to describe the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program" through which the attacked entered the country. So I ask again: Did you condemn the president's obvious politicization of that tragedy as being "just like a liberal," too?
So in your view, until we change the culture, we have to accept mass shootings as a fact of American life?
If our mass shootings and the 33,000 people who die annually from gun violence tell us anything, it's that we need FEWER gun restrictions!
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-06T13:08:55-05:00 — #14
Fair enough but I think it was more of an incident of rage.
Statement of fact.
I would say "unless" we change but yes.
Let's not use the 33,000 number as that is just dishonest. Those are mostly suicide.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-06T13:13:43-05:00 — #15
By the way, did you see what STOPPED the guy from killing more people? A citizen with a gun. Shocker...
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-06T13:20:43-05:00 — #16
The problem is not with the gun (or the knife, or the grenade, or whatever weapon), the problem is with the person influenced in whatever way to use it for violent acts.
I would venture to say, that a culture which is dominated by daily murder movies, violence as normal entertainment, morally depraved characters in brain washing shows, millions of drug users in the hands of dealers, is far more prone to have such type of mass shootings - as well as other criminal activities - than would be the case in a society with a culture where the level of conscience is different due to what the society is fed by media and politics. (cp what actually happend in the recent shooting in TX, the suspect immediately stopped his attack when he met armed resitance by a local resident !!)
Some folks would rather institute a general ban of large kitchen knives (oops, sorry, they only want that in the case of guns) because such "instruments" are used in violent crimes. They seem to be ignorant of the fact that a criminal will care absolutely nothing about legalities about his weapons of choice ... he/she will always manage to get the knife, the gun, the whatever ...
Also, any robber or person determined to commit violence against others will always take the route of "least expected resistance" (except in cases of planned suicide with the crime) ... thus, a shooter would of course prefer to attack in a place where he/she expects no armed resistance, rather than go to a place where he/she expects armed resistance waiting and watching.
Note what happend in the recent shooting in TX, where the attacker immediately dropped his weapon and stopped his attack when a local resident opened fire on him!
bill_coley — 2017-11-06T14:12:51-05:00 — #17
How does the "context" of the president's characterization of the Texas shooter's "mental health" issues and of the NYC attacker as "an animal" support your view that those characterizations meant he "recognizes the terrorist attack could have been prevented"? I see no connection between an attacker's being "an animal" and the possibility that the NYC attack "could have been prevented." Please make that specific connection, since that's the connection you asserted.
Again, the politicization to which I referred was the president's use of the phrase "a Chuck Schumer beauty" to describe the "Diversity Visa Lottery Program" through which the attacked entered the country. That phrase is not a "statement of fact;" it's an editorial.
I consider death by a gun - whether self- or other inflicted - to be a violent death, and therefore by an act of gun violence. Do you consider suicide by gun to be a violent death? If so, doesn't that necessarily mean suicides contribute to the gun violence statistics for our nation? If not, how do you characterize the deaths caused by guns in suicides?
And how many people would "the guy" not have killed had he not had access to the gun he used? Of course we can't know, just as we can't know whether he planned to kill any other people after he left the church.
The way I do the math: One citizen with a gun killed 26 and injured many others. The other citizen with a gun (might have) stopped one person from killing others. That means, at least 27 people died in Texas by guns yesterday. This "citizens with guns" thing doesn't impress me.
And shall we engage in a battle of anecdotes, with my presenting to you a collection of links to stories about some of the countless times people have been accidentally killed or injured due to the fact that "citizens" have guns in this country?
FYI, Wolfgang, I'm not responding to your posts on issues where we disagree because to do so would, almost assuredly, result in my asking you questions. That's a problem because over the last year or two you've adopted a practice of not even acknowledging, let alone responding to, many of the questions I asked you. It's not that you refused to acknowledge EVERY question I asked, but certainly many of them - perhaps as many as a dozen over several threads. I simply grew frustrated with your practice - which, to no effect, I repeatedly called to your attention - to the point of deciding no longer to engage your posts.
Because I've read your protests of such conduct when others failed to respond to the questions you posed to them, I know you understand the frustration I now report. If there comes a time when you can assure me that you will acknowledge and respond to all the questions I raise to you, I will certainly consider re-engaging you on issues where we disagree.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-06T14:36:46-05:00 — #18
Context of the rest of his comments about the diversity program.
You should check the voting records.
I'm saying you can't lump it into the same category as murder by gun. If someone is going to commit suicide they are going to do it however they can find.
You do realize the gun control laws already in place wouldn't even have stopped this. He somehow passed a background check that he should have failed. So much for universal background checks.
The problem is, we have a right to own guns in this country for very good reasons. Guns do not kill people contrary to your seeming belief. People kill people.
bill_coley — 2017-11-06T15:27:19-05:00 — #19
David, we're not communicating!
I've not been asking you about the president's view of the diversity program! I've been asking you how his comment that the NYC attacker was "an animal" has anything to do with his recognition "the the terrorist attack could have been prevented." THAT'S the connection you drew! You said the president's tweet that the NYC attacker was "an animal" meant he recognized the attack could have been prevented. What's the connection between the president's comments about the diversity program and the president's tweet about the NYC attacker's being "an animal"?
Again we're not communicating.
The president didn't just say "Senator Schumer voted for the diversity immigration lottery (as did several Republicans)." He called the program "a Chuck Schumer beauty." The former would have been a statement of fact. The latter - because of its word choice - was an editorial - a politicized editorial.
This response evades two of the questions I asked, so I'll ask them again. Do you consider suicide by gun to be a violent death? If so, doesn't that necessarily mean suicides contribute to the gun violence statistics for our nation?
I didn't ask whether suicides by gun are murders! I asked whether suicides by gun are violent. I didn't ask whether suicides by gun belong among the murder statistics! I asked whether suicides by gun belong among the gun violence statistics.
The deaths of people who kill themselves by means other than guns obviously do not belong among the gun violence statistics.
And THAT'S a reason not to lessen gun control laws? Does the fact that murder laws already in place don't stop all murders mean we should loosen murder laws?
You do realize that the "universal" in "universal background checks" does NOT refer to the comprehensiveness of each of those checks? It refers to the proposed requirement that all - or nearly all - gun sale transactions include a background check.
I agree that we have a right to own guns in this country. I'm not convinced that it's for "very good reasons."
Assume for a moment - please play along! - that we removed ALL guns from the U.S. for a period of one year. ALL guns, even the hidden ones (I KNOW it's impossible!) At the end of the one year trial, would we find more, fewer, or the same number of people murdered in the U.S.?
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-06T15:39:31-05:00 — #20
Such appears to me to be an impossible assumption .....
How do you suggest to remove all guns from those criminals who are not as silly to sink that everybody will give up their guns? Want to then take away all other instruments that could be used as weapons instead of guns to murder people?
next page →