More guns? Really?

OK, this is just horrible. And the president said, and I quote: “The massacre could have been prevented if the synagogue had armed security guards.”

Ah, maybe he’s right, I don’t know anything anymore.

Well, at least he didn’t say that both sides are at fault this time.

1 Like

I have no words for this right now.

The worst part is how this becoming such an everyday event, and it barely registers a second thought with many people. I drive past the Brookfield Sheraton on my way to work, so at least I have a regular reminder.


‘Pulse’ in Orlando, that school in Florida, that church where over 20 people were killed, this and over a dozen more. I know that many people in USA are opposed to gun control but this is simply too much.


I think the most apt response I’ve seen was this tweet:


I’m no Trump fan. He’s dissapointed me on foreign policy. And perhaps he shouldn’t have politicized this so soon.

But it’s difficult for me to see how he is fundamentally wrong. Even if we did want to start banning guns, this would be almost impossible given that there are so many different types of guns in the U.S.

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, it’s difficult for me to imagine it EVER being ok to bring a gun into church, even for a security officer. It would be fascinating to know if there were ever imperial guards with swords inside churches in Byzantium.

If a priest kills, he is defrocked. Soldiers who killed were customarily refused communion for several years. I don’t have an answer for Orthodox churches. Martyrdom, honestly? Or keep a gun hidden right outside the nave?

At the same time, it is still highly more likely to be killed DRIVING to school than in gun violence at school. As tragic as these are, they are still statistically extremely rare. And there is a lot of hype over upper-middle class americans being killed while gun violence in inner-cities (caused more by drug prohibition and gang violence) is all but ignored.

Punishment for carrying a firearm by jail-time would also radically contribute to the prison overpopulation problem. This would, of course, be paid for by raising taxes, or more likely, by the fed printing more money, or more government debt, which is already completely unsustainable.

Arming and training people honestly seems like the least bad solution (outside of an Eastern Orthodox parish, where I feel like any type of weapon other than the cross of Christ should be prohibited other than for an emergency).

1 Like

Banning guns would be downright impossible by now, that’s not what I’m talking about.

Rather, I’m thinking having some kind of license for using guns. Obligatory training, psych exam, eye exam, that sort of thing. Kinda like driving lessons. And, maybe, forbidding people from taking their guns outside of their house.

1 Like

The US could do what Australia did. In 1996 following a mass shooting Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. It also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the new law. Since that time homicides in Australia have declined 20% but gun related killings have declined almost 60%.

The US could expect such results too but the gun nuts would scream bloody murder if any attempts to take away their “manhood” were tried.


We have something like that here too, we’re only allowed to own pistols (and hunting rifles) but we’re not allowed to carry it outside of our home unless it’s empty.

1 Like


The shooter posted this:

"I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

What does it even mean?

1 Like

its murder. The murderer must be executed for even one murder…Yet they don’t say this because they don’t really believe a hman life is so valuable that too destroy it , unjustly, demands punishment and demands that persons life can only be seen as valuable by executing the killer.
Nothing to do with guns. in such a large nation of hundreds of millions the gun is not the point. in these rare cases a killer really could/would use a knife or a card or homemade bomb.
Its still rare relative to population. You can’t stop it. such a killer would aim at people like that hotel one. this one made political claims.
The others were bigger i understand.
Even ending the political complaints of these people would not make them less murderous. just other targets.
Remember in america the number of single cases of innocent people always dwarfs these events.
Lord heal the injured and sustain the hearts of those who lost people.

He was talking about immigrants from what I’ve figured. Seems like he considers Jews one of them.

I don’t know, he doesn’t seem all that sane.

1 Like

First, you talk about the value of human life then you ask for the man’s death. We have as much right to ask for his death as he had to kill all those people: in other words, no right, whatever he has done.

Shamelessly plagiarizing Tolkien.


It’s much harder to kill large numbers of people with a knife, car, or homemade bomb than it is with a semi-automatic rifle. Countries with tighter gun restrictions don’t see the same mass killings.

I don’t see how anyone can argue with the fact that if you could snap your fingers and remove every semi-automatic rifle in America in an instant, the number and magnitude of mass killings would decrease significantly.


I remember this joke Chris Rock made after some politician made a comment about how you can kill a hundred people with a knife:

“If a man killed a 100 people at the same time, in the same place with a knife than all but three first victims deserved to die. What are you just doin’ there, watching? Stop the guy with a knife!”

Or something like that.

1 Like

A few general comments:

  1. Gun control can do little to stop some guy with a gun running amok and killing many people. At best it could reduce the rate at which such incidents occur, and maybe reduce the lethality of such attacks (per Chris Rock).

  2. The vast majority of firearms injuries occur in the everyday shootings that may not even make the news. This is where reasonable efforts at gun control might do the most good. In a city like Milwaukee we see 2-3 children injured by firearms every week, and most of those are innocent bystanders (my data here is a bit old, but no less heartbreaking).

  3. Most people injured by firearms do not have insurance. When victims show up at emergency rooms, some 95%* of the costs are billed to public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid), and so this ends up being paid through our taxes. People concerned about gun control making guns more expensive need to be reminded that lack of gun control is also very expensive, and we are paying this cost already.

* 74-96%, depending on the how you count it.

  1. Monetary costs aside, the human costs are huge, and disproportionately afflicting the poorest people in US society. How do we justify this human cost, especially when we might reduce monetary costs at the same time through reasonable measures?

I have a proposal, but I’ll save it for a while to see what others have to say first.


The value of human life demands the destruction of the one who destroyed the innocent life.
NO we are not morally the same as this murderer.
Its an absurdity to not kill the murderer but charge him/her with many counts of murder. To charge is to say he is responsible and to pay for it. Putting him in jail is like saying each life was only worth what the division would be for the time.
The governments/nations etc not executing murderers is a great moral evil.
God commands it. Historic just mankind has demanded. I demand it.
All of them found guility.
Otherwise the state has said your/my life was valueless in its continued existence. tThe most important thing except the soul.
I think its a slight option that state refusal to punish murder and the spirit/beliefs behind it ACTUALLY is what encourages these murderes to dismiss human life as less valuable. Very , very, very, few yet they pick it up from the society waving away the lives of the murdered.
In fact this case has absurd charges about religion, hate crimes, etc that are meant to be the real victim. Not actual people. A liberal establishment is, slightly, responsible for these murderes dismissal of human life. Just a little. Its still 99% all the murderers evil soul.

Take a break from the Old Testament and take a look at the new one, kay?


I agree there are crimes where the death penalty is a fitting punishment. The difficulty is that it is not fairly applied, which is not justice. I would rather have no death penalty penalty than see innocent people executed.