Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Slain officer in Colorado Springs was a pro-life pastor

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Amid media speculation about the possible motivation of the Colorado Springs shooter who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic last Friday, one thing seems to have been overlooked: the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, was actually a pro-life pastor (h/t Terry Mattingly).

Time magazine reports that the officer was “heavily involved in his church, a non-denominational evangelical place of worship called Hope Chapel where he was a co-pastor.” Hope Chapel’s doctrinal statements can be viewed online here. The Chapel’s statement on marriage is doctrinally conservative, firmly opposed to gay marriage, and its affirmation that “children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord” is staunchly pro-life (emphases mine – VJT):

It is the belief of Hope Chapel that God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

We believe marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in a covenant commitment for a lifetime. Marriage is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church. Marriage also provides the man and the woman the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race. 1

We believe the husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image.2 The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband, even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.3 Being made in the image of God, as is her husband, and thus being equal to him, she has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband, and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.4

We believe children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.5 Parents are to demonstrate to their children God’s pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values, and to lead them to make choices based on biblical truth, through loving discipline and the consistent example of their own lifestyle.6 Children are to honor and obey their parents.7

We express our enthusiastic support for those public policies and programs which aim to strengthen the marriage commitment and to reverse the trend of the disintegration of the nuclear family.

As Christian ministers, we are bound to uphold the integrity of Scripture. We will only perform weddings for believing couples.8 We do not view marriage as a civil union, but as a covenant between a man and a woman, and almighty God.9 Therefore, we reserve the right to refuse to marry any who, according to the Bible, are ineligible. This includes those who are unrepentant with regard to pre-marital sex, those who are co-habiting together,10 and anyone who has not made a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Gen 2:24; Eph 5:32; Gen 1:22; 8:17; 35:11; Prov 5:18; Mal 2:15
2 Gal 3:28, 1Pet 3:7; Gen 1:26-27
3 Eph 5:22-25; 1Cor 11:3
4 Gen 2:18; Eph 6:4; Prov 31:10-31
5 Psa 127:3; Psa 139:13-16
6 1Cor 11:1; 1Pet 2:21; Prov 13:24;
7 Exo 20:12; Eph 6:1; Col 3:20
8 2Cor 6:14
9 Jer 31:31-32; Mal 2:14
10 2Cor 12:21; Eph 5:3

In plain English: The Rev. Garrett Swasey believed that abortion is homicide.

Hope Chapel’s doctrinal statement also forcefully declares: “The Scriptures are fully and verbally inspired by God as the prophets were moved by His Spirit.” No room for ambiguity there.

In his report on the Colorado Springs shooting, Terry Mattingly includes a telling quote from the late Cardinal John O’Connor of New York City :

“If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me,” said the late Cardinal John O’Connor, preaching to his New York City flock in 1994. “It’s madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It’s madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing.”

Mattingly adds that the slain officer, The Rev. Garrett Swasey, “made this statement to the gunman as he tried to protect people whose lives were at risk: ‘Shoot me.'” A recording of Rev. Swasey’s final sermon can be heard here.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones magazine, in an indignant article titled, “The New, Ugly Surge in Violence and Threats Against Abortion Providers,” suggests that the shootings at Colorado Springs may be connected with “an exponential increase in threats and violence against abortion providers since the release of a series of viral—and widely debunked—videos.” However, the cases of violence which the article cites go back almost 20 years, to the 1990s. (There have been cases of vandalism since then, but property offenses fall into a different moral category from crimes against persons.)

I might add that the Planned Parenthood videos, far from having been debunked, are in fact truthful and accurate (see here, here, here and here). Planned Parenthood has broken the law on at least four counts: illegal profiting from the sale of fetal tissue; performing illegal partial-birth abortions; illegally manipulating abortion procedures; and illegally performing abortions with the knowledge that the fetal body parts will be “donated” to research. As if that were not bad enough, these 39 Yelp reviews of the “services” provided by Planned Parenthood make horrific reading. As one reviewer put it: “If You Can Possibly Avoid Coming Here, Do It.” Reviewers describe Planned Parenthood clinics as “filthy,” “dirty” and manned by staff who displayed “complete indifference and a lack of compassion” and who were “not qualified for a consultation.” Summing it up, one reviewer wrote: “Worst service ever.”

Whatever the reasons may be for the appalling “services” provided by Planned Parenthood, money isn’t one of them: the organization boasted assets of more than $800 million in 2005-2006. Citing a 2007 report in the Weekly Standard, Slate Senior Editor Rachael Larimore writes that Planned Parenthood “gets at least a third of its clinic income — and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included — from its abortion procedures.” The oft-repeated the claim that abortions make up only 3 percent of the services that Planned Parenthood provides is therefore a shoddy statistic: Larimore describes it as “the most meaningless abortion statistic ever.” (Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson writes that 12 per cent would be a more accurate figure.) In addition, Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its entire budget from taxpayer funding – a figure which belies its frequent assertions that American taxpayers’ dollars do not to pay for abortions.

Ironically, Planned Parenthood, which performs just under one-third of all abortions in the United States, was founded by a women’s rights activist named Margaret Sanger, who opposed abortion and viewed it as an evil practice. In 1932, Sanger wrote: “Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.”

Meanwhile, the media reports that the shooting suspect allegedly made a comment to police about “no more baby parts.” However, it turns out that the suspect, who appears to have been an independent art dealer with a degree in public administration, had no political affiliations: he was registered as an unaffiliated voter in Colorado (where he owns a trailer on a piece of land in a town located 100 kilometers west of Colorado Springs), and people who knew him say that religion or abortion never came up in conversation. The man also had no on-line presence that anyone has yet found. Fr. Bill Carmody, a Catholic priest who has celebrated Mass regularly for 20 years in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs where the shootings took place says that the suspect was not part of his group, adding:“I don’t know him from Adam. I don’t recognize him at all.” Readers can learn more about the suspect’s history here.

Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina and Dr. Ben Carson have forcefully condemned Friday’s shootings in Colorado Springs, which former Arkansas Governor Huckabee described as “domestic terrorism.”

In the wake of the shootings, President Obama has called for tighter gun control laws. Given the shooting suspect’s history of alleged domestic violence and his previous arrest records (including two counts of cruelty to animals), I have to say that I agree with the President.

What do readers think?

Comments
Onlookers, notice the insistent diversion and refusal to understand justice, the civil peace and its defence from enemies foreign and domestic. And at no point has the word and sacrifice of the White Rose Martyrs been heeded. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
GUN: "But I take it from your posts that you’re going to do your best to make sure your responses have nothing to do with what anyone here is talking about." And this surprises you?joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
GUN, If you fail to see the relevance of the civil peace of justice and the importance of reform over vigilantism, then no reasonable person can help you. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
KF, I have. And they have no relevance here. If I were to encounter a situation where someone was about to slaughter a classroom of children, I would feel that it is justified to use force, or even kill the man, to save the children. Even without a formal declaration of war or a UN resolution. But I take it from your posts that you're going to do your best to make sure your responses have nothing to do with what anyone here is talking about.goodusername
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
"GUN: I suggest to you go look up the theory of the just war and of collective self defense and compare that of policing, law enforcement and reformation in the civil state. KF" OK. It is obvious that we have to use small words to get our points across. Recently, there were over 100 people killed by terrorists in Paris. You wrote about it. If you had the chance, would you kill their ringleader, during the event, to prevent this? Would you do the same to an abortion doctor? If not, why not? Were they not both premeditated? Did they not both end innocent lives? What is the difference? Could it possibly be that the abortions are ending the existence of something that we consider of less human value?joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
GUN: I suggest to you go look up the theory of the just war and of collective self defense and compare that of policing, law enforcement and reformation in the civil state. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
"JHG, I suggest to you go look up the theory of the just war and of collective self defense and compare that of policing, law enforcement and reformation in the civil state. KF" OK, I take that as a "No, I refuse to answer your question." Why? WWII wasn't declared a "just war" until after the war. Western countries turned boat loads of Jews back to Europe (mine included) long after we knew what was happening. I asked you a very simple question. In both cases, refusing to kill will result in 500 (or more) dead. Why are you equivocating? Would you kill to save 500 people between the age of two and ninety? (I would, and I will defend my decision). Would you kill to save 500 blastocysts? (I wouldnt and i will defend my decision). Why are you not willing to do the same?joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
kairos it takes patience to talk with notevenagallon and his friend pro hac vice. partgallon's scenarios are so silly and forced, almost nonsense. Do these people understand that war and peace are two totally different situations, hard to compare?Eugen
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
KF, So it would be ok to kill the guards in scenario one to save the lives of hundreds of Jews - but only because there was a formal declaration of war? And even then only if the person killing the guards is a soldier? So if the person who killed the guards and saved the lives of the Jews was not a soldier, he would be "utterly twisted"? I think most would consider him a hero. If someone is about to slaughter a classroom of children, I hope you’re not the first on the scene if all you’re going to do is warn him and think that is enough.goodusername
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
JHG, I suggest to you go look up the theory of the just war and of collective self defense and compare that of policing, law enforcement and reformation in the civil state. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
"JHG, You are again utterly twisted." KF, I have been respectful. If you can't answer without insulting me, you are not worth my effort. But, if you are serious about your position, I welcome a real response. Please explain why killing to protect innocent lives is OK in war, but not in peace? I am seriously curiousjoehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
JHG, You are again utterly twisted. In a war, soldiers do carry out special ops, even in cases where there are unintended deaths. Think, Heydrich assassination in Czechoslovakia. In a peaceful state, there is no basis for murder. It is the abortionist who is guilty of the 500. To warn is enough. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
KF, with respect, you are still evading the question. Let me simplify it for you. Scenario 1) You can derail a train full of Jews heading to Auschwitz (let's say five hundred people) but it would involve killing two guards. Would you do it? Scenario 2) You can stop five hundred abortions by killing an abortion doctor. Do you do it? I can tell you that I wouldn't think twice about killing two guards in scenario one. I absolutely wouldn't do it for scenario two. Now, without obfuscating and equivocating, can you provide as clear and concise a answer to those scenarios?joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
JHG, you have wires crossed and ethics inside out. The thing you miss in both places is the moral principle. We still have enough liberty to stand and warn so we should. And, murder is never justified though under certain circumstances in the face of overwhelming evil the community under its legitimate leaders has a collective right of self defense. In the case of abortion, exposure and legal pressure are actually winning the day bit by bit. In the case of the holocaust genocidal war was already in progress but Hitler et al so feared the truth they murdered those who stood up to warn. Including beheading a young girl and her brother the same afternoon, robbing their parents of both their children, by way of kangaroo court. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
KF, if you think you answered the question, all I can say is that I doubt any person reading this could summarize your answer. If you'd like to communicate your thoughts, perhaps you could make a concerted effort to be brief and to the point. You might answer in the form of a simple, declarative statement that does not digress into dire pronouncements or threats--something like, "Violence used to stop abortions is distinguished from violence used to stop the Holocaust because..."Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
But, getting back on topic, I have great respect and admiration for this police officer. He took an oath the protect citizens who are obeying the laws of the land, and he did that IN SPITE of his religious beliefs. Now, let's compare that to a certain county clerk who will remain nameless (because her name slips my mind), who refused to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple IN SPITE of the oath she took. Now, who is the real hero?joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
I think PHV has a point. If a one week old fetus is as human as a ten year old child, why would we accept violence to interrupt the holocaust, but not to interrupt abortions?joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
PHV, Do you really want me to summarise Shirer, Churchill and others or shove you off to Wikipedia? All I will say is Hitler started on WWI crippled veterans and children before WWII, and dressed up conc camp prisoners in polish uniforms and murdered them near a radio station to pretend the Poles launched the war. Just in Poland 3 mn Jews and 2 mn Christians were murdered with the Russians helping out with 40,000 officers. The Russians lost, what, 25 millions with maybe 5 - 8 mn on the actual battlefield, with a plan to confiscate the food in the Ukraine and leave the people to the winter being one of the most stomach churning things I ever saw. Lebensraum, in a twisted version of Mackinder's Heartland-World Island rise of Rail to make a new base for power in the global pivot Geopolitical thesis. Let me simply clip one slice of what the White Rose Martyrs said in warning:
WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.
You should be thoroughly ashamed of your lack of seriousness and respect in the presence of heroes who warned their nation and the world at the cost of their lives. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
PHV, the holoucaust occurred during a war and it was first exposed by the White Rose Martyrs at the cost of their lives. Does that mean the distinguishing factor was the formal declaration of hostilities, or that the perpetrators of the Holocaust were given sufficient notice? I don't think either makes sense. Would it be justified to shoot a gynecologist if you leafleted her clinic first? I don't think you believe that. Would it be unjustifiable for the White Rose to shoot an SS guard prior to the formal declaration of war? I don't think you believe that, either. So what distinguishes the use of force in the two cases? By speaking out early, we trust evil will not be sufficiently established that truth costs you your life. But, judging by a parallel thread it is doubtful that you are seriously listening. I appreciate your loving threats. If you mean that force is not justified in stopping abortions because it is "early," then I don't understand that position either. There are more than a million abortions per year in the US, so how many have to happen before the use of force is justified? Not that I think you have or need a specific number in mind, of course--but is that it? There's some point at which the use of force would be justified, and we haven't reached it yet?Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
PHV, the holoucaust occurred during a war and it was first exposed by the White Rose Martyrs at the cost of their lives. Christian martyrs. Six students some also serving in the German Army, a professor. BTW, their pamphlets were picked up by the Allies and were printed and dropped by bomber all over Germany. The Allies should have bombed the key rail junctions and should have done much more, but truth is the death camps were fairly late, most of the mass murder was in the East in the war zone captured by the Germans. The White Rose took the first, crucial step of exposing the evil. At the price of being caught, kangaroo courted and executed by a vicious tyrant. By speaking out early, we trust evil will not be sufficiently established that truth costs you your life. But, judging by a parallel thread it is doubtful that you are seriously listening. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
It was reported on an American, liberal forum yesterday that a baby, believed to be 24 to 36 hours old, was heard crying by two deputies. On investigating they discovered a baby girl half covered under asphalt and rubble by a cycle path - surely, abandoned when the person burying the baby took fright. The respondents sounded quite compassionate, but no-one seemed to want to join the dots, and I found myself wondering if their commitment to abortion made them feel so confused as to feel ambivalent, even about this gruesome, attempted infanticide. After all, I wondered if maybe being buried alive might have been a kinder way of being dispatched than being pulled limb from limb. A surreal world we live in.Axel
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
KF, does that mean that you would disclaim violence as a tool for disrupting the Holocaust?Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
PHV, You are talking to the same movement that by peacefully surrendering to murder rather than compromise conscience, changed the world 1700 - 2000 years ago. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
If we assume arguendo that a fetus is a human being with the same right to life as a one-week old, a one-year old, a teenager or an adult, then why is it not a moral imperative to use violence to stop abortions?
It is. However most people are trying other methods and that makes us feel better so we stick with it. Also there isn't any real unified pro-life and violence, unless totally successful, just seems to embolden and empower the opposition.Virgil Cain
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
How about mandatory testing for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, for anyone wishing to obtain a gun license, as well as mandatory testing for family members living with them, in order to determine whether a person who is awarded a gun license should also be legally required to keep his/her gun locked up at all times? This would be impossible for two reasons. First, the gun culture in the United States makes such steps virtually impossible to even discuss, much less implement. Any potential restriction on firearm ownership is seen as an affront to fundamental principles of liberty, and communities cohere around resistance to such affronts. Those communities range from the serious and rational (the Eugene Volokhs of the world) to the passionately mad (the Sandy Hook "truthers" of the world). Second, as a legal matter, the right to firearm ownership is embedded in the US Constitution. This is an oversimplification, but under our laws a regulation that substantially impairs access to a right is seen as the same thing as denying that right. Requiring someone to get an expensive license to start a blog would be just as unconstitutional as banning blogs, even if the licenses were granted to all applicants, because the fees would keep people from exercising their rights. (This is why laws requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting procedures are constitutionally suspect.) Your proposal would be seen as such a restriction, because the tests would be costly and time consuming. I think the odds of such a law surviving in court are virtually zero. Also, how about very stiff jail sentences for people who are certified as mentally competent and who are licensed to own a gun, but who, as a result of negligence, fail to keep their guns out of the hands of mentally ill (or very young) family members living with them? This is more likely to be constitutional, but would run afoul of the gun culture. What would be negligence, for example? Being forced to keep their guns locked and unloaded would be seen as an unconscionable denial of the basic right to bear arms by many Americans. They'd see it as negligent to not have a gun readily accessible. That may seem like an unbelievable statement, but consider one response to school shootings: many people want teachers and school staff to be required to bear arms. (It's a minority position, of course.) (I realize that in the event of a burglary, this requirement would reduce the gun owner’s ability to respond quickly and defend him/herself, but the risk of the gun falling into the wrong hands if it is not locked away is far higher. The number of deaths resulting from gun owners not being able to unlock their guns in time to stop a burglar is likely to be far lower than the number of deaths caused by mentally unstable people or children accidentally getting hold of a gun and misusing it.) This logic is irrelevant. The gun culture is motivated by a perception of fundamental rights, not utilitarianism.Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
LarTanner:
If there’s any good that can come out of this senseless event, I hope that people realize it’s time to stop equating legal abortions with homicide, murder, or similarly damning terms.
No, it's time that everyone sees abortion as what it is- the murder of innocents.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure.
THAT is the problem. In a society that accepts the senseless slaughter of millions of innocents the concept of homicide is confusing. People see the senseless slaughter of million of innocents and they try to stop it by any means necessary. In a different context those people would be considered heroes.Virgil Cain
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
I have a simple question. Suppose that in 25 years’ time, the government passed a bill allowing parents to kill their newborn babies during the first week or month after birth, if they decided that they didn’t want them after all. Would you stop calling that homicide just because it was legal? I don’t think you would. Abortion, like the slave trade of old, is a monstrous injustice. It needs to be denounced from the housetops. I might add that the pro-life movement has shown itself to be highly disciplined in its conduct. Would you help me understand something about the anti-abortion position? If we assume arguendo that a fetus is a human being with the same right to life as a one-week old, a one-year old, a teenager or an adult, then why is it not a moral imperative to use violence to stop abortions? Let us assume that concentration camps were legal under German law, and that we all agree that it would have been virtuous and right for the resistance to use violence to disrupt the camps' operations. That is to say, very few people would say it would be wrong to ambush a truck and free Jews on their way to the camps, even if it required killing the guards. Why does that logic not apply to the bombing of abortion clinics, if such attacks have the result of discouraging some number of abortions? To be clear, I understand that the anti-abortion movement in general does not endorse or defend the use of violence to stop abortions. The very rare outliers—those who would endorse violence to stop abortions, and those who would reject it even to liberate a concentration camp—are not relevant. My question is directed at the mainstream. I don't want this to be taken as a rhetorical device or a "gotcha" question. So to be clear, I think the answer is that in fact virtually no one actually believes that a fetus is fully a person, and that this explains why many people treat abortion as something less than homicide even when they take the position that a fetus is a person. I don’t think that you would agree with me there. So I'm very curious about your position.Pro Hac Vice
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
VJT: I would suggest that Schaeffer and Koop were right forty years past and the rise of abortion has increasingly corrupted law, politics, family life, sexuality and general public morality through the power of institutionalised and pervasive blood guilt. Even the murder statistics generally likely reflect that. And that many do not perceive the matter and do not feel it to be utterly socially and personally corrosive and destructive to law and justice, would be major red warning flags. This is a major part of why we are where we are, the upcoming generation are abortion survivors -- 55+ millions in the US alone is half a generation slaughtered in the womb and maybe 5 - 10% of the global total . . . the worst holocaust in history -- indoctrinated in the view that human life in the womb is of no worth or sacred dignity, and from that all else follows. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
VJ
How about mandatory testing for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, for anyone wishing to obtain a gun license, as well as mandatory testing for family members living with them, in order to determine whether a person who is awarded a gun license should also be legally required to keep his/her gun locked up at all times?
That’s quite an overhead! I am not sure how easy it is to test for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia but having to test the applicant and his/her entire family is not going to be cheap or quick. What about private purchases?
Also, how about very stiff jail sentences for people who are certified as mentally competent and who are licensed to own a gun, but who, as a result of negligence, fail to keep their guns out of the hands of mentally ill (or very young) family members living with them?
I guess it depends on what counts as negligence.
Even if the percentage of mentally unstable people who are homicidal is very low, it’s still far higher than the percentage of mentally stable people who are homicidal. In other words, mentally unstable people are a very high risk group
I don’t think it is far higher.  People with severe mental illness are more likely to be violent than average but not hugely so. If you prevent a group having access to guns on the basis that it is high risk without them actually having committed a crime then you are onto a very slippery slope. There are plenty of other high risk groups: young black men for example.
a mentally unstable person is unlikely to possess the discretion required to know when to fire a gun and when not to, in a real crisis – i.e. what kind of behavior counts as life-endangering.
Are you sure? Surely it depends on the nature of their condition and there are plenty of people without any mental problems who have poor judgement in a crisis.
Actually, about 10% of homicides committed each year in the U.S. are committed by adults with severe mental illness, despite the fact that they make up only 3.3% of the population. 10% is quite a significant proportion. Any measure that would reduce the homicide by 10% is well worth undertaking.
This recent metastudy suggests the figure is less than 5%. Of course it would In any case a move which fails to address 90% of homicides is hardly a solution.
Finally, regarding the “gun culture” in the United States, I can’t claim to fully understand it, but I do know that it will probably take centuries to change it, if that ever happens.
Agreed it would take a long time – so the sooner they start the better!markf
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Abortion, like the slave trade of old, is a monstrous injustice.
A fair position to take, but not the only reasonable one and surely there are sensible nuances in most every position. It would be something to have a proper case argued fully and successfully in the courts. Rooftop denunciations are no longer responsible.
I might add that the pro-life movement has shown itself to be highly disciplined in its conduct.
I agree. The pro-'life' movement has indeed been highly disciplined in its conduct. Incidentally, readers might be interested in the story of an evangelical leader who realizes that pro-life and pro-gun are incompatible.LarTanner
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply