Comments for Moderate Mormon http://moderatemormon.com ...Not selfwilled, not soon angry... but temperate. -Titus 1:7 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:18:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 Comment on A Look at Gun Control by JuggLer http://moderatemormon.com/a-look-at-gun-control/#comment-31 JuggLer Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:18:52 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=141#comment-31 Been giving some thought to your blog post, and there are areas I agree and areas I don't. First, I think that the whole issue of whether gun control laws would have reduced the number of guns or created an underground market depends in part on how long ago said hypothetical gun control laws went into place. If they went into place the week before the tragedy, there would be little chance that anything would change. If they had gone into place a century before, however, there's a chance that the type of gun he used wouldn't even have been invented, since there wouldn't be a market for it. Also, while initially there might be an underground market, and there will likely always be some illegal guns, the number of guns can be reduced substantially if they are more restricted. Second, I agree with you that, in this case in particular, the shooter probably would have found some other method of causing harm, likely through bombs of some sort. However, the thing about homemade bombs is that they tend to be bulky, ineffective, require special materials, or all three of the above. He may well have been able to kill and hurt people, but I think it is unlikely he would have been as successful. Also, guns are made by experts, tested and improved under controlled conditions by companies with large budgets. There was almost no chance that something unexpected would happen with the guns he was using. Had he been forced to make his own weapon, he would have had to make it and test it using his own limited budget, with the chance of injuring himself in the meantime or being noticed by someone else. I'd personally rather he be forced to do that, rather than leveraging the expertise of hundreds of engineers and designers. Finally, I think that generally speaking, it doesn't make much sense to base the question of gun control laws and such around an incident like what happened in Aurora. In general, it is a bad idea to make a rule based on the exception. Things could have been done to reduce the damage or make it harder for the gunman (like making it harder to get 6000 bullets delivered in the mail), but it seems unlikely that any reasonable level of restriction or surveillance would have prevented him from doing some harm. However, there are a lot of other times and places where making it harder to get a gun would have prevented harm from being done, or would have made it easier to catch the person who did the harm. Been giving some thought to your blog post, and there are areas I agree and areas I don’t.
First, I think that the whole issue of whether gun control laws would have reduced the number of guns or created an underground market depends in part on how long ago said hypothetical gun control laws went into place. If they went into place the week before the tragedy, there would be little chance that anything would change. If they had gone into place a century before, however, there’s a chance that the type of gun he used wouldn’t even have been invented, since there wouldn’t be a market for it. Also, while initially there might be an underground market, and there will likely always be some illegal guns, the number of guns can be reduced substantially if they are more restricted.
Second, I agree with you that, in this case in particular, the shooter probably would have found some other method of causing harm, likely through bombs of some sort. However, the thing about homemade bombs is that they tend to be bulky, ineffective, require special materials, or all three of the above. He may well have been able to kill and hurt people, but I think it is unlikely he would have been as successful. Also, guns are made by experts, tested and improved under controlled conditions by companies with large budgets. There was almost no chance that something unexpected would happen with the guns he was using. Had he been forced to make his own weapon, he would have had to make it and test it using his own limited budget, with the chance of injuring himself in the meantime or being noticed by someone else. I’d personally rather he be forced to do that, rather than leveraging the expertise of hundreds of engineers and designers.
Finally, I think that generally speaking, it doesn’t make much sense to base the question of gun control laws and such around an incident like what happened in Aurora. In general, it is a bad idea to make a rule based on the exception. Things could have been done to reduce the damage or make it harder for the gunman (like making it harder to get 6000 bullets delivered in the mail), but it seems unlikely that any reasonable level of restriction or surveillance would have prevented him from doing some harm. However, there are a lot of other times and places where making it harder to get a gun would have prevented harm from being done, or would have made it easier to catch the person who did the harm.

]]> Comment on Lessons on Immigration from the Book of Mormon, Part 1 by djc1203 http://moderatemormon.com/lessons-on-immigration-from-the-book-of-mormon-part-1/#comment-26 djc1203 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 04:12:07 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=28#comment-26 I totally agree. I know several Latinos and these people are really suffering and struggling from the impositions we have put on them. We need to be more compassionate. I totally agree. I know several Latinos and these people are really suffering and struggling from the impositions we have put on them. We need to be more compassionate.

]]> Comment on An Email to State Senator Margaret Dayton about HB 70 by glvaughn http://moderatemormon.com/an-email-to-state-senator-margaret-dayton-about-hb-70/#comment-25 glvaughn Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:36:06 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=117#comment-25 Good job! I sent off a message to my Rep. Barrus as well as Sandstrom, Ivory and Wimmer. I referred them to my blog entry on this issue: http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2011/02/states-rights-stink.html Maybe you've already seen it. I doubt it will do any good, but we have to keep trying and grow our moderate movement as best we can in Utah. Good job! I sent off a message to my Rep. Barrus as well as Sandstrom, Ivory and Wimmer. I referred them to my blog entry on this issue: http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2011/02/states-rights-stink.html
Maybe you’ve already seen it. I doubt it will do any good, but we have to keep trying and grow our moderate movement as best we can in Utah.

]]> Comment on God Isn’t Registered to Any Party by glvaughn http://moderatemormon.com/god-isnt-registered-to-any-party/#comment-23 glvaughn Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:38:19 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=75#comment-23 Wow! I found your blog on a test search for mine I just started. We have some similar thoughts. I think that my philosophy of "passionate moderate" addresses some of the issues Elder Oaks was talking about. Even in the Gospel, I want to stay as close to the brethren as I can with the scriptures and official church policies and teachings. I don't want to be making up extra rules for the Word of Wisdom or anything else to impose on others like some do. And I don't want to be a Liahona Mormon either. It's hard to be a moderate. That's why I have to be passionate about it. Anyway, if you're at all interested, check out my blog: http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/ Wow! I found your blog on a test search for mine I just started. We have some similar thoughts. I think that my philosophy of “passionate moderate” addresses some of the issues Elder Oaks was talking about. Even in the Gospel, I want to stay as close to the brethren as I can with the scriptures and official church policies and teachings. I don’t want to be making up extra rules for the Word of Wisdom or anything else to impose on others like some do. And I don’t want to be a Liahona Mormon either. It’s hard to be a moderate. That’s why I have to be passionate about it. Anyway, if you’re at all interested, check out my blog:
http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/

]]> Comment on A Christmas Question by formerlyphread http://moderatemormon.com/a-christmas-question/#comment-22 formerlyphread Fri, 24 Dec 2010 05:17:56 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=106#comment-22 The one who asks for things which are out of the question ("...or an iPad would be cool, you know?") is the one who knows what being Santa means, so the answer is, "Oooh, I don't think so. That's really pricey, you could save for it." And then I end up praying extra hard so I can win cool gifts via blog giveaways. Win-win-win. The one who asks for things which are out of the question (“…or an iPad would be cool, you know?”) is the one who knows what being Santa means, so the answer is, “Oooh, I don’t think so. That’s really pricey, you could save for it.”

And then I end up praying extra hard so I can win cool gifts via blog giveaways. Win-win-win.

]]> Comment on The Long, Long Arm of the Law by mikemetcalf http://moderatemormon.com/the-long-long-arm-of-the-law/#comment-21 mikemetcalf Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:29:07 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=108#comment-21 <blockquote>Officials said the book talks about safe sex and avoiding injury to children, grooming and preparing children for sex and teaching children how to lie to their parents. Judd said Greaves' book outlines a "code of ethics" that shows pedophiles how to look for the most vulnerable children.</blockquote> Part of me wants to punch this guy in his jewels. The other part of me wants to kick him in the jewels.

Officials said the book talks about safe sex and avoiding injury to children, grooming and preparing children for sex and teaching children how to lie to their parents.

Judd said Greaves’ book outlines a “code of ethics” that shows pedophiles how to look for the most vulnerable children.

Part of me wants to punch this guy in his jewels. The other part of me wants to kick him in the jewels.

]]> Comment on A Christmas Question by tarlen http://moderatemormon.com/a-christmas-question/#comment-20 tarlen Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:23:34 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=106#comment-20 I'd explain that it's too expensive to buy right now, but that they should try saving up for it themselves. Then you could offer to help them with that goal in various different ways, and hope that it would mean even more to them once they manage to buy/earn it for themselves. I would then try to get their second preference, if possible, or something almost as good. Unfortunately most children, especially younger ones, tend to not be grateful for what they get if they have higher expectations. If they have been going on about something for weeks leading up to christmas, and you haven't said they won't be getting it, they'll likely expect that they are (I know I was like this, and my parents managed my expectations beautifully). Don't blame Santa - if anything that will encourage resentment towards Santa, or christmas itself. You don't want to make your kids not look forward to Christmas in the future. I wouldn't throw finances to the wind either... well actually I probably would for my daughter, but this is about advice, not personal behaviour :-). I wouldn't <i>suggest</i> throwing finances to the wind, as that will only make things more difficult for the whole family going forward. I’d explain that it’s too expensive to buy right now, but that they should try saving up for it themselves. Then you could offer to help them with that goal in various different ways, and hope that it would mean even more to them once they manage to buy/earn it for themselves. I would then try to get their second preference, if possible, or something almost as good.

Unfortunately most children, especially younger ones, tend to not be grateful for what they get if they have higher expectations. If they have been going on about something for weeks leading up to christmas, and you haven’t said they won’t be getting it, they’ll likely expect that they are (I know I was like this, and my parents managed my expectations beautifully).

Don’t blame Santa – if anything that will encourage resentment towards Santa, or christmas itself. You don’t want to make your kids not look forward to Christmas in the future.

I wouldn’t throw finances to the wind either… well actually I probably would for my daughter, but this is about advice, not personal behaviour :-) . I wouldn’t suggest throwing finances to the wind, as that will only make things more difficult for the whole family going forward.

]]> Comment on God Isn’t Registered to Any Party by SDR http://moderatemormon.com/god-isnt-registered-to-any-party/#comment-19 SDR Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:31:54 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=75#comment-19 Wish I could edit, as I never see all the mistakes before submitting. The most glaring one is "we ought to be electing political parties" should have been "we ought *not* be electing political parties". Oops. Wish I could edit, as I never see all the mistakes before submitting. The most glaring one is “we ought to be electing political parties” should have been “we ought *not* be electing political parties”. Oops.

]]> Comment on God Isn’t Registered to Any Party by SDR http://moderatemormon.com/god-isnt-registered-to-any-party/#comment-18 SDR Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:28:39 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=75#comment-18 Back in 2000 I was so excited that for the first time in a very long time, we'd have a GOP executive branch, a GOP house, and a GOP senate. Only took me about three years to get over that. It's not that I thought everything was the fault of the GOP, or that Bush was stupid, or they were evil for the wars. For me it really all came down to the breakneck pace at which the government was spending money. What happened to all that fiscal restraint? Republicans completely forgot one of their supposed core principles. I am still registered as a Republican, because their platform is the one that I seems to most closely match my own beliefs, and I don't think there is anything wrong with selecting a candidate on that basis. *BUT*! There certainly should not be a straight ticket option, and I'll go two better: One, there should not be political parties listed on the ballot, period. Not "Barack Obama (D)" or "John McCain (R)" or "Ralph Nader (G)" (or Ralph Nader period, but that's another issue). We've managed to dumb down the electorate to the point that they don't *need* to research before they go into the polls because they can just wait until they get there and pick & choose based on party. We do not elect political parties (or at least we ought to be electing political parties) and thus they should have no status on the ballot whatsoever. If you care enough to vote for one party, go to the party and get their blessed list of candidates. Two, the government ought not be involved in running primaries or caucuses (where they do, anyway). Those are what parties use to select candidates and delegates, and the parties should foot the bill. I'm all for political involvement, and if you want to support a party great! But our tax dollars should not support political parties. It's funny ... I feel that I'm just as conservative as I ever was, but I feel that the party system (and my party in particular) has largely failed me. The higher the office, the more I feel betrayed these last 10+ years. I may be registered as a republican, but relatively few republicans (and none for federal office) have gotten a vote from me these last 6+ years. George Washington was so on-the-money to warn against political parties. There is nothing wrong with finding like minded people to help promote a cause or a candidate. If only that's what we were doing today, instead of letting the parties tell us who to vote for and game the system to effectively keep out alternatives. Back in 2000 I was so excited that for the first time in a very long time, we’d have a GOP executive branch, a GOP house, and a GOP senate. Only took me about three years to get over that.

It’s not that I thought everything was the fault of the GOP, or that Bush was stupid, or they were evil for the wars. For me it really all came down to the breakneck pace at which the government was spending money. What happened to all that fiscal restraint? Republicans completely forgot one of their supposed core principles.

I am still registered as a Republican, because their platform is the one that I seems to most closely match my own beliefs, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with selecting a candidate on that basis. *BUT*! There certainly should not be a straight ticket option, and I’ll go two better:

One, there should not be political parties listed on the ballot, period. Not “Barack Obama (D)” or “John McCain (R)” or “Ralph Nader (G)” (or Ralph Nader period, but that’s another issue). We’ve managed to dumb down the electorate to the point that they don’t *need* to research before they go into the polls because they can just wait until they get there and pick & choose based on party. We do not elect political parties (or at least we ought to be electing political parties) and thus they should have no status on the ballot whatsoever. If you care enough to vote for one party, go to the party and get their blessed list of candidates.

Two, the government ought not be involved in running primaries or caucuses (where they do, anyway). Those are what parties use to select candidates and delegates, and the parties should foot the bill. I’m all for political involvement, and if you want to support a party great! But our tax dollars should not support political parties.

It’s funny … I feel that I’m just as conservative as I ever was, but I feel that the party system (and my party in particular) has largely failed me. The higher the office, the more I feel betrayed these last 10+ years. I may be registered as a republican, but relatively few republicans (and none for federal office) have gotten a vote from me these last 6+ years.

George Washington was so on-the-money to warn against political parties. There is nothing wrong with finding like minded people to help promote a cause or a candidate. If only that’s what we were doing today, instead of letting the parties tell us who to vote for and game the system to effectively keep out alternatives.

]]> Comment on God Isn’t Registered to Any Party by Randy Tayler http://moderatemormon.com/god-isnt-registered-to-any-party/#comment-16 Randy Tayler Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:22:39 +0000 http://moderatemormon.com/?p=75#comment-16 I've done the same thing - failed to educate myself, so refused to vote. I think it's the right choice. I cannot BELIEVE there's a "vote-straight-ticket" choice when you vote. I’ve done the same thing – failed to educate myself, so refused to vote. I think it’s the right choice.

I cannot BELIEVE there’s a “vote-straight-ticket” choice when you vote.

]]>