Are the numerous mass shootings an evidence of America's moral decline?

[16KJV11]

Moral decline....in America? 

Someone on a forum asks if numerous mass shootings are an evidence of America's moral decline and people on a fundamental forum declare their support of marijuana and gay marriage. 

What moral decline?

nah... there is no moral decline ... :.... .. and none evidenced by anything happening on this christian forum.... unless you consider the fact that 9 years ago when i first joined the old fff i was considered one of the most liberal people there.... and now.... after not changing one single thing that i believe .... i am now considered an ultra conservative and even got called a fundamentalist xer the other day.....  ??? ....... but nah...... no moral decline at all.... :


;D

Me and ale, like many others are to her, are friends.  As such, I may have a little fun and sporting alongside her at others expense, but such is not the case with what I am about to say.  I'm dead serious. Her post is one of the most demonstrative illustrations of how things change, culturally, and religiously.  The fact that the composition of this site thinks that tattoos, boozing, cigarettes, dope-smoking, and a host other things that used to be condemned taboo at best by the evangelical Christian community are now acceptable serves the same purpose.  And watchful young impressionable eyes are reading this forum and ones like it where justification for such things are daily given.  Imagine what they are reading on non-Christian sites, things that lead them into rationalizing Bill Clintonesque sorts of immorality.  She is right on the money, and JrChurch's sarcastic post drives the point home all the more.  A fundamentalist forum where pot and gay marriage are essentially advocated.  It would be laughable if it was not so incredibly sad.

And right on the money. 
If these attitudes are characteristic of the 'church' beliefs then we are in more trouble than I first thought.
Is it any wonder that the country is in the mess it is in?
If the standard is so low in what is supposed to be Christianity, we should expect no more than we are seeing today.
But why should we be surprised when 'main line' denominationalism began going liberal years and years ago?
And most (not all, but most) neo-evangelical Community churches have as their base root a 'main line' denominational church.
FWIW, that's why IFB'ism was started.
Many former Southern Baptist pastors got sick of liberal professors in the schools and leading the convention.
We were condemned years ago and will continue to be condemned until Christ comes back.
(Done with ranting and ducking for cover) 

 

[christundivided]

Do you realize that the number of people using it illegally in this country is astronomical?  Yet people like myself who would love to try it for pain can't do so because we are law abiding citizens.  Self centered?  It's people who oppose it's legalization who are keeping it from the people who need it and keeping it only in the hands of those who wish to abuse it.  It's just the like gun issue.  The only people affected by it are the ones who obey the law.  The rest don't care either way.  They're still going to use it.

I see your still being self centered.

The fact people illegal use is astronomical.... doesn't change anything. Point to all the facts you want. I told you I had a friend that got "pot pills". You can get "pot pills" without legalizing pot across the board. Can't you see the compromise or is the only comprise you want is the one you can get your hands on a doobee any time you want?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Didn't you read what I stated?  You make it sound like that prior to 1993, military personnel routinely walked around base armed with weapons.  That is not the case.  Had Hasan done what he did on Fort Hood in 1981 (I was stationed there then), the outcome unfortunately would still have been the same.

I'll take your word for what the military did back in 1981. 

However, in TODAY'S world, we have nutso military that sympathize with our enemies, join the "Soldiers of Allah", and call up our enemies for advice, and we overlook all that in order to be politically correct. 

In TODAY'S world, the military can't arm themselves during regular daily activities to protect themselves against such monsters.  Why?  Because of what Bill Clinton did in 1993. 

 

[FreeToBeMe]

In TODAY'S world, the military can't arm themselves during regular daily activities to protect themselves against such monsters.  Why?  Because of what Bill Clinton did in 1993.

If shootings were a regular occurrence on military bases like they are in some of our nation's cities, I'd be inclined to agree with you. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

In TODAY'S world, the military can't arm themselves during regular daily activities to protect themselves against such monsters.  Why?  Because of what Bill Clinton did in 1993.

If shootings were a regular occurrence on military bases like they are in some of our nation's cities, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Let them carry sidearms (or whatever they wish).  It doesn't have to be a requirement, just an option.  Then the Nidal Hasans of the world will think twice before trying to shoot down a roomful of people. 

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Let them carry sidearms (or whatever they wish).

Since the vast majority of Army personnel are NOT trained or qualified on handguns, I don't believe that would be a good idea.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Let them carry sidearms (or whatever they wish).

Since the vast majority of Army personnel are NOT trained or qualified on handguns, I don't believe that would be a good idea.

Soldiers aren't trained on handguns?  Yes there are lots of non-soldier personnel.  Maybe they SHOULD be trained on handguns.  An Army base sounds like a good place to get that training, too.  Conveniently located. 

 

[JrChurch]

Yes ma'am, but what I don't understand is: doesn't that facility have some sort of procedure in place, like airports do, to check you as you enter a GUN FREE ZONE to make sure you don't have a gun?

Recently, I had to go to see a lawyer whose office was on the third floor of the federal court house. I had to empty all my pockets and be patted down. It just seems like to me, in this day in which we live with all of the violence that we have, that a facility that doesn't allow guns would have some procedure in place to MAKE SURE OF THAT. I just don't understand how this man got in there with the guns if it is a gun free zone.

As a dependent of a retired military officer, all I have to do to enter a base is present my valid military I.D.  The most I can expect is a random search of the vehicle with a bomb-detecting canine. 

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Soldiers aren't trained on handguns?  Yes there are lots of non-soldier personnel.  Maybe they SHOULD be trained on handguns.  An Army base sounds like a good place to get that training, too.  Conveniently located.

I can't speak for the AF, Navy, or Marines, but I know for a fact that most Army personnel are not trained and do not qualify with sidearms.  Combat arms troops are about 10% of the total force.  The rest are support troops.  In most units, the only ones who are issued a sidearm are the officers.  The rest are issued long arms (rifle, MG, etc.).

Now, I'll take my leave and let all of you arm-chair soldiers decide how the military should do business, since you all seem to have so much experience in that area. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Soldiers aren't trained on handguns?  Yes there are lots of non-soldier personnel.  Maybe they SHOULD be trained on handguns.  An Army base sounds like a good place to get that training, too.  Conveniently located.

I can't speak for the AF, Navy, or Marines, but I know for a fact that most Army personnel are not trained and do not qualify with sidearms.  Combat arms troops are about 10% of the total force.  The rest are support troops.  In most units, the only ones who are issued a sidearm are the officers.  The rest are issued long arms (rifle, MG, etc.).

Now, I'll take my leave and let all of you arm-chair soldiers decide how the military should do business, since you all seem to have so much experience in that area.

If 10% of the people in that room had sidearms, Nidal Hasan wouldn't have gotten off a second shot.  If officers were in that room and had sidearms, Nidal Hasan wouldn't have gotten off a second shot. 

Disarming military on bases is stupid. 

 

[Ransom]

Where do the slack-jawed teenagers get it?

Judging by the number of grow-ops Ottawa police have busted in the last three years? Just about anywhere.

 

[ALAYMAN]

"Culture of death"...you mean like violent video games that seem to be a key factor in the lives of many (if not most or even all, I haven't researched it I've just noticed it to be common) of the shooters we are now familiar with?  I feel like there isn't enough attention being paid to that detail and what seems to me to be a common thread.

Yeah, the wholesale toleration and celebration of violence in numerous media and entertainment venues is another indication (as Tom Brennan said on page one, and Ale said somewhere too) of the sickness of the culture of death.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Good opinion piece on the Navy yard thing:

“Do not take action.”

Then came the latest Orwellian phrase in the “homeland security” lexicon: “Shelter in place!” So, not only are you not allowed to defend yourself against mass murderers, you are not supposed to run from them, either.

This, my fellow countrymen, is pure insanity.

And all the terror and real bloody carnage took place inside the most impenetrable fortress of gun-control utopia.

The very guns Aaron Alexis used to kill 12 people are banned in this city, unless you submit to an exhaustive, invasive and expensive process and prove to the city bureaucracy that you are worthy of your Second Amendment rights. Clearly, that failed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/hurt-defenselessly-sheltered-as-anti-gun-fortress-/

 

[4everfsu]

Mass shootings had their beginnings in the 1960s. No you never heard of the mass shootings then,

• Andrew Kehoe, 1926.
• Leung Ying, 1928.
• Howard Unruh, 1949.
• Charles Starkweather, 1958.

There are plenty of instances prior to the 1960s in the U.S. of spree killings of co-workers, neighbours, schoolchildren and the like.

I suspect it gets more press now because with 24-hour news reporting, everything gets more press now.

Please take my statements as a whole. The foundation for mass killing was started in the 1960 because when killing an unborn child is the law of the land, how do you expect anyone raised after 1960 to value life, born or unborn. Thus killing multiple people is nothing now to the public other then those who lose loved ones.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=4everfsu]Please take my statements as a whole. The foundation for mass killing was started in the 1960 because when killing an unborn child is the law of the land, how do you expect anyone raised after 1960 to value life, born or unborn. Thus killing multiple people is nothing now to the public other then those who lose loved ones.[/quote]

I was raised after 1960. I value life.
My wife was raised after 1960. She values life.
My siblings were raised after 1960. They value life.
My parents were raised after 1960. They value life.
My co-workers were (mostly) raised after 1960. They value life.
My friends were (mostly) raised after 1960. They value life.
.
.
.

 

[christundivided]

Even though there are still some people that value life.... those people are still part of a small minority.

 

[rsc2a]

Even though there are still some people that value life.... those people are still part of a small minority.

The majority of Americans lean pro-life.

The majority of Americans also overestimate the support for pro-choice positions.

 

[Izdaari]

An outlier? Yes, in this group I suppose I am. There aren't many libertarian emergent Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians here, are there? 

It has been brought to my attention that I left out Lutheran. Yes, I am that too (ELCA version), because I joined a parish that formally has both TEC and ELCA affiliations, and I have had a Lutheran confirmation.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=4everfsu]Please take my statements as a whole. The foundation for mass killing was started in the 1960 because when killing an unborn child is the law of the land, how do you expect anyone raised after 1960 to value life, born or unborn. Thus killing multiple people is nothing now to the public other then those who lose loved ones.

I was raised after 1960. I value life.
My wife was raised after 1960. She values life.
My siblings were raised after 1960. They value life.
My parents were raised after 1960. They value life.
My co-workers were (mostly) raised after 1960. They value life.
My friends were (mostly) raised after 1960. They value life.
.
.
.
[/quote]

Point of historical fact:

Roe v. Wade came down from the Supremes in 1973.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=4everfsu]Please take my statements as a whole. The foundation for mass killing was started in the 1960 because when killing an unborn child is the law of the land, how do you expect anyone raised after 1960 to value life, born or unborn. Thus killing multiple people is nothing now to the public other then those who lose loved ones.

I was raised after 1960. I value life.
My wife was raised after 1960. She values life.
My siblings were raised after 1960. They value life.
My parents were raised after 1960. They value life.
My co-workers were (mostly) raised after 1960. They value life.
My friends were (mostly) raised after 1960. They value life.
.
.
.

Point of historical fact:

Roe v. Wade came down from the Supremes in 1973.[/quote]

Maybe the civil rights movement is the foundation for mass killings?