Proper Christian response to Orlando shootings

Apparently.

I could imagine, for example, that she marries, has a kid, then finds out her husband is frequenting a gay night club. Islam takes a negative view of the LGBT+ crowd (Iran hangs them off cranes; they're thrown off roofs in the Middle East, stoned, shot, etc.), so how do you reconcile that with who you are as a person? The worst way possible, in this case. Why does the wife go along with it? She hates the LGBT+ crowd because she has a kid with a man she isn't just going to lose in this life (and bring shame on herself and her kid in the process), but in the next re: his eternal damnation, and what deserves the worst level of hell but a sin which is a perversion of Allah's creation?

Of course she could also just hate the LGBT+ crowd, or she's one of those unbelievable people who will defend / protect family no matter who family is.

 

Or, she is a jihadist just like him.

 

That too

 

Is there anything to even justify this, or is it speculation on your part?

And I'd assume that drawing a bead on someone in the chaos that would be a nightclub during this time would be pretty difficult.

 

You raise some of those wonderful moral dilemmas:

Do you decide not to draw / cease firing because the gunman has entered into a crowd, you don't want want anyone to get killed by FF (friendly fire), but in the process the gunman has free reign?

Do you decide to draw and continue the gunfight knowing people will get hit and possibly killed by FF - but what if it's less than the 49 + 6 in hospital, what if it's more? Or, do you let SWAT storm the building afterwards and deal with the consequences of this decision for you (a decision which likely did result to FF deaths)?

Do you decide to stop the gunman any way you can before he gets into the nightclub, or after he gets cornered in the bathroom, including the loss of your own life (the more bullets he fires at you, the less he's firing at someone else)?

Do you as a patron of the night club get together with a bunch of other guys and attempt to take down the shooter, knowing that you'll probably get shot and possibly killed in the process?

Does the above question say anything about the state of Western society, when a terrorist starts shooting up a nightclub and none of the men inside put everything on the line in a bid to save those around them?

 

In my (limited) experience, the more rounds down range, the less likely to ever aim a weapon because the muscle memory is so finely attuned to "acquire sight picture + squeeze" almost simultaneously at anything under 25 yards.

Although I don't have any empirical evidence for it, my belief is that the more skilled the shooter, the less likely to draw or aim without certitude of one or two shots per target.

 

The Oprahfication of the American male (without making any comments about homosexuality in general) has lead to a situation in which much of society writ large views "male putting everything on the line in a bid to save those around them" as being mysoginistic neanderthalism.

 

You combat it by insuring that, at all times, you are prepared and instantly able to defend yourself, your family, and those in your immediate vicinity from imminent physical harm, and you prepare yourself to use deadly force if necessary, even at the risk of your own life.

That's how you combat it.

 

Ah yes, ye olde sexism.

Maybe mandatory military service is in order. In that world the shooter walks into a club filled with people who are clear thinking enough to know to rush a lone gunman, that he can only shoot in one direction while you can rush him from every direction, that a person can take multiple body shots, etc.

 

I would LOVE for us to have mandatory military service.

 

I tried convincing my wife to let me do my service in Finland, but she wasn't too keen on the idea. What can you do *shrug*

 

This is about the best that could possibly happen. But it involves a group to be thinking along the same lines. Probably the best example from recent memory would be the passenger revolt on Flight 93 on 9/11. Those people had the prospect of time to come to a decision together. In a noisy nightclub with a lot of people, many probably not even realizing what was going on until they were shot or herded with the rest toward the exits would have not have had much time to be particularly clear minded, even if they were well-trained.

 

Definitely. Easy to arm-chair analyze after the fact what the ideal might have been.

 

"... saying 'Peace, peace, but there is no peace."

Part of the problem is that as Americans, we have enjoyed almost unlimited prosperity, ease, and little suffering as a society since World War II. All of our "problems" are 1st world elite "problems."

Add to that the fact that the history of this country, its independent mindedness, its intended small federal government, and the idea of self-reliance that was once pounded into our heads in government indoctrination centers, I mean, schools -- is no longer the norm.

We have two generations that are incredibly reliant on government services and subsidies.

As a result, we believe that no evil exists or can befall us in public because:government.


Those cynics among us walk into every restaurant, bar, movie theatre, and shopping center and immediately assess exits, potential threats and threat entry points, potential secondary weapons, means of cover and/or concealment, etc...

 

And I thought I was the only one who did this

 

Really? I mean, I get the point, but it seems so broad-brush a stroke. Self-reliance has it's value, but like any trait, can easily be twisted into selfishness and pride. Self-reliance was necessary in the earlier years of both our countries when there simply were little to no services of any kind, or for those living well out of the urban centres (like even us now). While dependence is not a good trait, there is a need for greater interdependence. This is what I see in our smaller town here in the north. People genuinely help each other out.

Yeah, that would be extremely cynical considering your chances at being injured or dying while driving there outweigh any harm at such a place by quite a wide margin.

 

So there are two correct people, at a minimum, in the world today...