Dad on gun control.

Normally, whenever some of my dad’s work gets onto the blog it’s because I saw him dropping the hammer on somebody on facebook or in the forums of our local newspaper.  But today he sent me this piece that he specifically wrote up about gun control.

Gun Control…Where do you even start?

Disclaimer: I am a gun owner, second amendment believer, and I am for better gun control laws.

“Assault rifles”. One of the excuses of those who seem to think we cannot improve the situation is that there is no such thing as an assault rifle. Define “assault rifle”, they demand. They may be correct about this. The media, non-gunners, politicians, and others have played fast and loose with the term and now it has come back to bite them in the ass.

So, let’s dispense with the use of the term “assault rifle”. Instead, let’s “use weapons with high capacity clips or drums or magazines”. Let’s further define “high capacity” as “more than ten”. If this definition fails to be all-inclusive, perhaps some of the knowledgeable pro-gunners can help tighten it up instead of nit-picking it as a way to skirt the problem.

The follow up here from pro-gunners is that changing clips is a relatively fast procedure, so limiting the size doesn’t really limit the firepower that much. This is true. Perhaps to offset that we could require that new sales (after say, 2014) require magazines that need a tool to release them, a kind of fixed magazine, that limits quick magazine changes. Perhaps the extra time will buy some extra lives.

I can’t help but feel that working together to come up with definitions and solutions we can do better than “Nothing can be done”. Unfortunately, we have one side that is desperately only working on “Nothing can be done”. That “assault rifle” is a poor choice of terms shouldn’t end the conversation.

The next cliche coming from the pro-gunners is usually two parts: one, that people who are intent on killing will find a way to kill, and two, that we can never completely stop the carnage. They are correct about this. Killers will use bombs, knives, propane, and whatever, and we can’t outlaw everything. This is also true. They can even present examples of when these things were used. There is no doubt that we cannot completely prevent massacres and violent death.

However, although just about anything can and is used to kill, the common thread running through most of the massacres in the U.S. in the last 30 years or so is guns……usually guns with high capacity magazines. The argument is nonsensical that because we can’t and don’t ban everything that could possibly be used to kill people,then we shouldn’t ban or at least address the most common culprit. Regardless of how illogical it may be, we hear this one a lot.

The next cliche is “No matter what ‘laws’ are in place, only law-abiding citizens OBEY those laws.” Yes, if we ban high capacity quick change magazines, criminals will still have them. If common criminals were the ones doing the massacres, this argument would have feet. But…they aren’t, for the most part. Most of the perpetrators are not criminals (prior to the act), but are instead people with mental/emotional problems and ideological motivations. It seems that usually criminals with high capacity quick change magazines use them against each other and law enforcement, not at schools, malls, theaters,churches etc.

The next cliche up goes something like, “The issue at Sandy Hook was not the gun, it is a people problem….” Actually, it is both. Not only is it both, it is also a host of other problems: school security, mental illness detection and funding for treatment, as well as the cultural stigma that doesn’t treat mental illness like any other illness, the media that glorify the killers and thereby encourage others to get their moment of fame this way, etc. The thing here is that just because we can’t fix all of the problems ever or most of them immediately is a sorry excuse to not address some of them—like background checks and high capacity magazines—right now.

The last one I am going to address is “This wouldn’t have stopped the carnage at Sandy Hook” or “This won’t prevent ALL of them”. Absolutely correct again. However, we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can’t prevent ALL of them, then let’s prevent SOME of them. If we can’t stop ALL of the deaths, let’s work to decrease the total number of deaths. This “all or none” attitude is just foolish, and again is just an excuse to do nothing instead of to take steps to make things better.

He’s right on all counts, in my estimation.  It goes back to what I said yesterday: we need reform, not across the board bans.  I am just as displeased when I get lumped in with the anti-all-guns people, on account of being a “liberal”, as I am at getting lumped in with the bumpkins who think people should be able to own guns without a license, including automatic weapons with clips that carry hundreds of rounds.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • otocump

    In the discussion of Guns ongoing, JT, you never did respond to many of us (including myself) questioning this line of thinking:
    “I believe an armed populace is a necessary influence on its government.”

    Your Dads points and questions come across quite clear and well phrased, as do most of yours with that one glaring exception.

  • Katie Graham

    An armed populace is no influence on our government. Have you seen our military budget? Would you suggest citizens have access to purchasing f-22 Raptors? Those jets are so badass, I’d want one, but the social contract that keeps me safe says it should be in the hands of the pros.

  • Anonymous

    People who do not support gun control do not say “Nothing can be done”. We say “”The laws being proposed will not work”

    The AWB didn’t work in 1994, and it won’t work in 2012. Now, I do like the fact that he is at least trying to come up with solutions, and seems willing to talk about them intelligently. That is much more than we have seen from anyone on TV these past few days.. *cough*Piers Morgan*cough*

    • unbound

      I would disagree. I have quite a few friends that do not support gun control, and “nothing can be done” is exactly their mantra.

      They do want a discussion…but only if that discussion does absolutely nothing to change access to guns in any way, shape or form. By all means, correct me and point me anywhere that a person who is just against some specific legislation is seriously discussing anything remotely like a compromise that will do anything useful. They will talk about harsher punishments for criminals, mandatory sentencing, and usually gun safety…none of which would do anything significant in the greater scheme of the problem, and certainly wouldn’t have done anything for the vast majority of tragedies over the past 30 years.

      JT’s dad is not proposing anything new. But the gun lobby (predominantly the NRA) fights these things tooth and nail. They spin it beyond recognition to make all laws sound horrific without *ever* providing realistic solutions.

      In fact, one of the few things I’ve seen the NRA accomplish is to change laws to make things potentially worse. Growing up in North Dakota, I hunted all the time (deer, duck, geese, turkey, antelope, fox, and many other animals), and the laws were pretty simple. You could have one round in the chamber and no more than 2 additional rounds in the magazine. And this was perfectly fine…a general rule of thumb hunting (which I found to be very true) is that if you hear one shot, there would be a dead animal; if you heard 2 shots, there might be a dead animal; and if you heard 3 shots, there would not be any dead animal. Now, the NRA pressured the state (and many other states) into allowing high capacity magazines. This served no value whatsoever to hunters…but it certainly helped create a new market for the gun manufacturers to sell high capacity magazines. That is the true value that the NRA brings this debate, and the source of much of the argument against any form of gun control. After all, the NRA can’t serve the gun manufacturers very well if they ever advocate anything that might reduce sales…

  • 13ruce

    There is also the fact that, even today, it is possible to create working gun parts from a DIY 3D printer using plans freely available from the internet. While this is a niche area today, 3D printers are bound to be as commonplace as mircowave ovens in coming years. Unlike the considerable skill and resources required today to create your own gun in a machine shop, 3D printed guns are going to be easy for everyone to own at their whim, without serial numbers, and without registering with any agency. This would mean legislation restricting guns will not provide a substantial obstacle to those who wish to have them. It seems foolish to focus on gun legislation when we should be focused on helping to identify and help the mentally ill before they hurt others.

    • otocump

      I’m not sure I agree with the sentiment ‘Everyone is going to have guns any ways so everyone should have guns any ways.’ This is true just about anywhere else in the world, yet the differences between cultures of Euro nations and US when it comes to guns just puts this concept to shame.
      I agree helping the mentally ill should be at the forefront.

      We laud a lot of ‘godless’ nations like Norway and so forth for their otherwise skeptical and reasonable approaches to just about anything else, why examine their gun control practices versus their gun crime as well? Seems to me like its working out pretty well…

    • Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

      Oh, don’t worry about the 3D printers. They’ll ban 3D printers long before it becomes an issue.

    • unbound

      Just to clarify for those that haven’t followed the 3D printing of gun parts…you can’t currently print a whole gun that will function. The primary idiots doing this work are printing the lower receiver of the gun (this part is heavily regulated and tracked) and then attach all the other parts (metal) that aren’t regulated closely (i.e. barrel, stock, magazine).

      The point of what they are doing is to avoid being tracked by the “gub’mint”.

      • Drakk

        This is only applicable to the AR15 series, though.

        • unbound

          I haven’t seen a working gun yet that was made 100% from a 3D printer…not even sure it can be done outside of an industrial 3D printer. Is there something interesting I missed?

          • Rowan

            You just need to have your muse ping someone with a fabber, burn a few rep and they’ll throw in armor piercing rounds and a hermaphrodite pleasure-pod morph you can fork into to have sex with yourself.

  • Zme

    If access to guns cannot be controlled (because of the rantings of 2nd amendment fetishists) then at least control the ammunition. That is easy to implement without breaking any law or amendment…look at the nationally implemented OTC epinephrine access control for a good model.

    • WMDKitty

      I like this idea.

  • Zme

    If something isn’t done then Sandy Hook becomes just the latest bloody sacrifice laid before the altar of firearm “rights”…it won’t be the last and it won’t keep the title of 2nd most deadly for long.

  • unbound

    Well said by your father and summarizes my thoughts on the subject extremely well.

  • Doug

    Can I post a link to this on my Facebook feed? It says everything I’ve been thinking better than I could put into my own words. Your dad is a wise man.

    • John Eberhard

      Glad you like it, Doug. Help yourself.

      • greg1466

        Excellent article, John. I’d like to re-post as well. Curious if the original source is online somewhere?

        • John Eberhard

          This is the original source. I wrote it as a response to commentary in the state newspaper, JT saw it before it went in there and put it here. I ended up putting an abbreviated version in the newspaper. Glad you like it, help yourself.

  • Joe Fogey

    It always makes me sad to hear Americans talk about guns, but happy that I live in a country where there is very little gun ownership, and where deaths attributable to guns are ridiculously low by American standards.

    The argument that an armed citizenry can overturn an oppressive government seems to me a poor justification for continuing a situation in which thousands die needlessly each year. When citizens are determined, the superior force always available to governments is usually neutralised over time. Look at the Indian independence movement, the struggle against apartheid, and the Egyptian version of the Arab spring. Consider also the struggle for democracy in Britain, Poland and many other countries. Learn from international experiences and abandon exceptionalism, and it all seems different.

  • anon

    Joe fogey: deaths are deaths no matter the tool. Did Australia’s murder rate drop drastically after they confiscated guns country wide? Nope.

    • Jasper

      The key bit of information there is that despite being confiscated, the firearm murder rates were done with illegal/unregistered firearms. The guns were still there to do the violence. This doesn’t help your case. The problem was still the guns.

      Do you know what a “catalyst” is? It’s something that allows a process to occur easier. Guns are essentially “death catalysts”. Point, push button, dead. Point, push button, dead.

      If someone was intent on killing another, and all he had was a wiffle bat, that person wouldn’t be very frightening. If that person had a minigun, that would be terribly frightening, and he/she could probably mow down hundreds of people before anyone could react.

      The fact is, it doesn’t matter how deep one buries one’s head into the sand, or whether they plug their ears and hum loudly to themselves, the fact is, there are devices out there which make killing people much easier than it would be otherwise. That’s the point of a gun. That’s what they are for.

      And thus, incontrovertibly, it would be more difficult to kill others without those devices which make it easy. We can’t completely eliminate murder, sure, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it more difficult – and step one would be to actually remove those tools, which are finely tuned to deal as much destruction, from society.

      Not just feebly pass laws like Austrialia did, but to actually successfully remove them.

    • Anonymous

      “homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.”

      • Anon

        Your link doesn’t work, but the US homicide rate dropped over the same time period, what’s your point there? ” in 2010 the U.S. homicide rate fell to 4.2 homicides per 100,000 residents, the lowest U.S. homicide rate in four decades”.

        Saying that Suicides “By firearm” dropped, doesn’t paint the whole picture. How about total suicides? How do those numbers compare to the US over the same time period? Anyone can paint half the truth to make their point.

  • Anonymous

    The comment above was in response to “anon”.

  • machintelligence

    This post is the most intelligent and reasonable thing I have seen so far. Restricting the sale of semi-automatic weapons with interchangeable magazines would be another possibility. Require a fixed box magazine loaded through the open action or a loading port. Since retrofitting older weapons would not be practical, allow existing owners to keep theirs, but prohibit transfers with a mandatory government buyback. This would, over time, reduce the number of such weapons in public hands and would not penalize the existing responsible owners.
    And for those who contemplate taking on the government:

    • Laen

      I don’t think you could get fixed magazine on all weapons. I mean in a mechanical sense.* Pistols would be a huge problem in that case and if they are excepted then everyone will see carbine/pistol combos rise in popularity over the AR-15 styles now favored. Meaning it wouldn’t have the over all effect you are trying to achieve. Mechanically, and legally, I think it would be more likely to get magazines requiring a separate tool to release the magazine. Yes there are ways this is being shortcut, but it adds steps to a magazine change which slows it down however it is done. I think overall aiming for tool release of magazines on all weapons would be more effective than fixed magazines on just rifles.

      *Yes mechanically or legally we could go back to ball and powder weapons, but in the real world this will never happen in the US.

      As a final aside it isn’t worth it to engage on the resisting the government argument. There are only two types of people that think that way. Believers that you will never convince and soldiers that have seen how it can be attempted. Believers aren’t worth engaging regardless and while it could be an interesting war game to go through all the variables with a soldier it still won’t change anyone’s mind.

  • TiltedHorizon

    I own several guns. I enjoy the challenge of hitting a paper target (with an image of a zombie) at 25 yards. I also enjoy the fact that I can honor my Father’s teachings by passing on the same respect and enthusiasm for firearms with my own children. What I don’t enjoy are the reactions I have come across as a response to this senseless massacre. From the anti-gun crowd labels like Gun fetishist, gun nut, irresponsible, potentially dangerous criminals in waiting. Comments like: Ban all guns, confiscate by force, and even one “kill all gun owners”. From the fringes of the pro-gun crowd, “if the teachers where allowed to carry”.

    I am glad to find someone actually making some useful suggestions. I find it laughable that in certain states someone can get a gun in under 30 minutes, guns should be regulated like drivers licenses. One should have to prove themselves capable and proficient to own a firearm and be legally required to have the means to safely store their firearm at home. No civilian ‘needs’ to have a firearm same day, do a proper background check, if it takes weeks or months who cares, actually require references who can offer some insight on mental state.

    “WHAT? He just broke up with his girlfriend? What? You have no friends who can provide recommendations? NO GUN FOR YOU!”

    No civilian ‘needs’ high capacity clips, reloading more often can be annoying but so what, ammo is expensive so having to pace oneself would mean more range time; win win. Private gun sales should be outlawed, I can’t sell my car without transferring the title to the new owner, firearms should be treated the same; accountability is a good thing. Gun buy-back programs should be socialized, tweeted, and facebooked, these programs are hugely successful when utilized but awareness is typically limited until tragedy strikes.

    It IS possible to have sensible gun control without having a witch-hunt. I’m ready to start today.

  • Philip May

    The abundance of firearms in the United States is currently responsible for substantial costs in lives and dollars borne by all citizens due to intentional or accidental misuse. This includes the cost of increased security at public and private institutions to provide protection against attack. Local school boards must now make decisions about whether they can afford to increase security at their schools to be able to withstand a direct attack by an armed madman or whether they should play the odds and hope that they will not be attacked. If we as a nation believe that possession of these firearms is justified, then we must also be willing to pay for it in future lives lost and dollars. I believe that anyone owning a functioning firearm should have to pay a small annual use fee or tax, the proceeds of which would be used to help fund security personnel and installation of upgraded security features at public facilities.

  • Rufus

    The fixed magazine is good in theory, however there are already some rifles out there where it’s already an awful lot easier to reload the magazine that is already in there than to switch it for a fresh one.
    The problems are that they are finally out of regular use by almost every official body, and the strip-loader that was normally used was (in semi-skilled hands) a half-second job to reload a ten-round magazine.

    • Anon

      The problem is, these aren’t solutions to the problem, they are attempting to fix crazy through legislation. Take this terrible shooting in Brazil last year for example.
      “Wellington Menezes de Oliveira, 24, opened fire on dozens of children aged 12 to 14 at the school, which he had attended — firing at least 66 shots before he turned one of his two revolvers on himself. ”

      Did you catch that last bit? REVOLVERS. This guy used 2 guns with technology from the 1800s, no “high-capacity” magazines, no semi-automatic guns shooting up to 100 bullets per minute, no, just a crazy guy with a couple revolvers let loose in a school.

      THIS IS THE REASON GUN CONTROL WONT WORK. Legislating and regulating them will just make you all feel good about yourselves, you’ll be so proud.. Until the next tragedy. Then you’ll be trying to ban hammers like Australia nearly did.

  • John Eberhard

    Anon…the idea that legislation which can’t stop every possible death shouldn’t be used to stop some deaths is just bizarre….that because you can’t stop every massacre you shouldn’t attempt to decrease the total number of deaths from them is an idea that is nothing short of preposterous.

    • Anon

      Did you know that swimming pools cause nearly 4,000 deaths per year? Why in the world would we not ban swimming pools, we could save up to 10 people PER DAY.

      What’s that? No one interested in banning swimming pools? You say “but we are careful and practice safety around our pool!” Sound familiar?

      Of course I know this argument is silly. No one is using swimming pools to massacre anyone, but they are killers, silent killers.

      Look at the numbers for abortion, over 700,000 unborn children are aborted in the US every year, the ironic thing is that most people who support gun control are the same ones who support abortion.

      I’ve yet to see any actual proof that gun control has proven to lower the overall homicide rate anywhere. I *HAVE* seen where violent crimes, rape, assault, etc have spiked in other countries immediately after gun control was enforced, and overall homicide rate continues along the same trend.

      • Laen

        Why not…I’ll bite.

        Pools? Really…ok. Here’s your federal regulations regarding pools and spas.

        Abortion…nah that’s just an attempt to divert the conversation.

        “I’ve yet to see any actual proof that gun control has proven to lower the overall homicide rate anywhere.”

        I’ve yet to see anyone talking about overall homicide rate. I’ve seen people talking about how to minimize the possibility of mass murders. Hence the talk of limiting high capacity magazines and the sort of thing that could be used in mass murders. You don’t need 30 round magazines to kill one person, it helps a lot if you are trying to kill 20+.

        • Anon

          As I linked above, a recent case of a man shooting 66 times with 2 revolvers, they are 6 shooters! We need to stop fixating on the mentality that banning magazines or certain types of guns will somehow stop these madmen from killing.

          Look at the 2 worst mass murders in recent US history, we have 9/11, mass murder by airplane, and Oklahoma City, fertilizer and diesel to kill 160 people including children.

          No guns, nothing but crazy.

          • Laen

            If we get rid of high capacity magazines, and over the next couple of years revolvers become the weapon of choice in mass murders then maybe we’ll have to look at speed loaders. Until then lets address the actual problem. The actual problem in recent years is semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines. You act like if the solution doesn’t stop every single mass murder than nothing should be done. We, most of us, have the ability to address more than one thing at a time. We can address fanatics and actual crazy people, while still limiting the amount of damage they can do if we don’t identify them all. Hence extra security at airports. While I certainly don’t agree with every change in airport security since 9/11, it doesn’t mean we should have taken no action.

            Madmen will always kill, we aren’t claiming that limiting high capacity magazines will stop them. We are claiming that we can limit the amount of damage they can do if they don’t have these weapons accessible to them.

  • John Eberhard

    “Did you know that swimming pools cause nearly 4,000 deaths per year?”
    Did you know swimming pools have nothing to do with massacres committed by firearm use?

    “I’ve yet to see any actual proof that gun control has proven to lower the overall homicide rate anywhere.”

    Gun control is designed to lower the rate of homicides by the type of weapon being controlled. To think otherwise is just plain silly. The U.S. assault rifle ban in 1994 reduced the number of homicides by assault rifles. It didn’t reduce the number of homicides by poison, but only a dim bulb would expect it to. It didn’t lower the homicide rate for guns that weren’t addressed by it, but, again, only a dim bulb would expect it to. It didn’t lower the overall homicide rate, but only a dim bulb would expect a ban on certain assault rifles to be responsible for either the raising or lowering of the overall homicide rate. That law only addressed one factor and one factor cannot be expected to be responsible for the overall rate.

    Abortion and gun control are separate issues and each must deal with on its own merits or lack thereof. Red herrings and obfuscation don’t deserve to be addressed.

    • Anon

      “Gun control is designed to lower the rate of homicides by the type of weapon being controlled.”

      Exactly my point, it does nothing to address the actual problem of why are these people trying to murder en masse.

      I think this reply of yours pretty much sums up the idea that you aren’t looking to solve the issue at hand, just trying to ban X item because it’s in the news and its the popular thing to demonize right now.

      Don’t forget that a lunatic did this, would you feel better about it if he went in there with a machete, or a pick-axe or a crossbow? This is why I’m saying that focusing on GUNS is not the answer. We need to work on how we can identify and help individuals like this before they snap. That is the only way we will be able to stop these mass murders from happening.

      • TiltedHorizon

        Banning guns will not stop the rage killings, I also sincerely doubt it will result in any lives saved. These types of killings follow script, they target the vulnerable and defenseless, they want ‘sensational’ headline grabbing body counts, and these are typically planned far in advance of the actual deed, and as the last insult to injury they nearly all kill themselves so no one can have closure. They are psychotic and driven to cause as much pain as possible before leaving this world. It is the ‘planning’ that differentiates these killings from the heat of the moment attacks and other violent crimes. It means if they cannot acquire firearms they simply ‘plan’ according. One third of all rage killings since 2000 did not use firearms, they still managed double digit kills rivaling those involving guns.

        Gun control is not a magic solution, while I don’t expect it to make a dent in rage killings these only account for around 1% of homicides. Accidental shootings, like kids finding a gun in dad’s shoebox, will likely to drop sharply. Opportunistic crimes, like holdups, may see a decline. School homicides, particularity in low income inner-city urban areas, where testosterone and ‘having something to prove’ run high will likely see a drop. Beyond these areas though, I don’t see any changes.

        While ‘gun control’ will likely not make a huge impact, I believe it can be beneficial, at least in certain cases.

  • Laen

    “Don’t forget that a lunatic did this, would you feel better about it if he went in there with a machete, or a pick-axe or a crossbow?”

    Yes. Yes I would. In my not so humble opinion there are far fewer people in the world capable of killing 20+ people with a machete, pick-axe or crossbow. It is my not so humble opinion that some of those teachers or children would have been able to get away. It is my not so humble opinion that it is easier to kill large numbers of people with guns with high capacity magazines than it is with a machete.

  • John Eberhard

    “Exactly my point, it does nothing to address the actual problem of why are these people trying to murder en masse.”

    It isn’t meant to address”Why?” It is meant to decrease the number of deaths while we DO address “why” and address other factors. Gun control needs to be part of a comprehensive approach that covers a variety of factors.

    “I think this reply of yours pretty much sums up the idea that you aren’t looking to solve the issue at hand….” That would likely be because you assumed that this article reflects all of my thinking and all that I have written about the larger question of what all can be done. Of course, your assumption is just plain wrong. I can assure you, however, that abortion and swimming pools do not enter into any of my pondering or into my suggestions for solutions to make the massacre situation better.

    “Don’t forget that a lunatic did this, would you feel better about it if he went in there with a machete, or a pick-axe or a crossbow?” I wouldn’t feel particularly “better”, but I do think that would have resulted in fewer fatalities. At least. I can’t think of any mass murders where the above killed more than 28. Can you? If so, please enlighten me.

    “This is why I’m saying that focusing on GUNS is not the answer.” Okay….goody for you. I didn’t say focusing on guns is the answer. However, I will say that gun control is certainly a part of the answer.

    “We need to work on how we can identify and help individuals like this before they snap.” We certainly do. And gun control. And school security. And funding for treatment and diagnosis of the identified individuals. And address media glorification. And work on a culture shift from guns as holy grail. All of these and other factors need to be addressed as part of a comprehensive approach to the problem.

    ” That is the only way we will be able to stop these mass murders from happening.” It will be a long time before we can “stop” them from happening, if ever. In the meantime, a reduced killing capacity by way of large capacity limitations will decrease the number of deaths.

  • anon

    You think*

  • Rock Doc

    I’ve wondered more than once, if the national preoccupation with the afterlife has any bearing. I was raised Baptist, and was taught that those who are not old enough to choose to accept Christ as savior go to heaven when they die. In addition, all those who are saved go to heaven when they die. Heaven is described as a place of perfection, without, pain, suffering, want, hunger, or any of the other issues that can make life on Earth miserable. My Baptist upbringing celebrated death as a transition to a better life, one of perfection, seated at the right hand of god. Since maybe 75% of the population of the USA espouse some version of this viewpoint, I wonder if it makes it easier for those with mental issues to rationalize killing others. If they are children, have diminished mental capacity, or are saved, then they get to go live in heaven. If they are heathens, then they have shunned god and have it coming. It seems to me that this type of belief system provides a basis to rationalize the murder. Of course, I could just be way off base and full of $hit.

  • Catholic Dad

    This has been planned for a very long time and STILL they can’t let a consistent story come out:–further-evidence-shows-sandy-hook-was-staged

    • ArachneS

      The amount of shit people will make up when they want to shift the blame is unbelievable. Too bad so many gullible people want to believe it.

      I grew up with parents that would believe this kind of shit every time. And not just conspiracy theory shit either… They got taken in bymulti-level marketing schemes over and over… even one that was gutted by the top and shut down by the BBB. I don’t understand why they keep believing it. They sold gold coins in the 90′s, and then there was Amway, and the stupid Gas Pills, and now it’s set of special oils that cure “everything”.

      Guess that’s why I’m not catholic anymore. Everything just started to look like bullshit when you ask a few questions.

      • RobMcCune

        He posted the same thing on Hemant’s blog, I figure he’s just going to spam a bunch of sites with his addled conspiracy crap.