Do you think it's Christian to own guns?

seadog4109 said:

I do not feel condemned by God for owning guns, or power tools or a car etc. - even though someone could do bad things with any of them.

Click to expand...

How you "feel" about some activity you engage in is not a very reliable guide as to its morality.

I suggest that while the Scripture never, of course, says "It's OK to have a gun", it is nevertheless clear for a number of reasons that the gun culture that has the USA in its grip is decidedly at odds with the gospel.

Aldebaran said:

A person who owns a gun, even for defense, doesn't necessarily belong to the "gun culture", whatever that is.

Click to expand...

I agree - not all gun owners, perhaps not even most, have bought into an unhealthy gun culture.

Aldebaran said:

At what point would you personally see it as wrong for a Christian to own a gun?

Click to expand...

I think it is always "wrong" in the sense that to the extent we really follow Jesus, we would not have a gun. But, to be fair, there are a lot of other things we should arguably be doing that I do not do: give up the convenience of a car, give all my money away except for necessities, etc.

Aldebaran said:

What about going to the doctor when we're sick? If it's our time as appointed by God, then we shouldn't resist our demise.

Click to expand...

Not analogous. I have never promoted this kind of "fatalistic" thinking. I have simply pointed out that Jesus demands a lot from us - rejection of use of force, selflessness, concern for others, and we all fall short. When have I ever said God does not approve of us caring for ourselves?

I know your argument will that the gun is used to protect ourselves. Well, maybe (although I suggest the facts show the opposite - that owning a gun increases your risk of a violent end).

However, caring for yourself or family is not an imperative that trumps all other considerations. Going to the doctor has no downside relative to others. Having a gun does: the gun might be used in anger, or accidentally. And there are other ways in which the gun scenario differs from the "going to the doctor" scenario.

expos4ever said:

Having a gun does: the gun might be used in anger, or accidentally.

Click to expand...

So Might a car, a steak knife, a power tool, a chain saw (ever seen a tree twist when it falls?), we Could go on and on.
You see a gun can be a dangerous weapon, I see a car can be a dangerous weapon. But I see the Real dangerous weapon can be the person using either one.

I just heard yesterday that my neighbor finally cornered the two men who had killed and stolen 22 of his calves, almost one by one. They were lying in wait with their pickup and when a calf walked out into the road they would strike it with their pickup and throw in their truck and take off. That's almost a $25,000 loss to my neighbor.
Now my neighbor and his son own guns, did they use them? No, they set up a sting to catch them in the act and blocked off their escape routes until the brand inspector and the sheriffs could get up there on the mountain.
If those thieves had guns and shot at them they could have shot back but I can tell you they wouldn't have unless they absolutely had to in order to protect their lives from imminent danger.
You go out to check your cows at night and there's a coyote killing a new born calf that hasn't even completely left the womb, what do you do, you shoot it. You find a cow or sheep that a bear has attacked what do you, the kindest thing you can, a bullet to the head.
And people want us to give up our guns because gangs are killing each other, because there a fools who are irresponsible with their guns, because of the nut case that hasn't gotten the mental health care that they need, I don't think so.

Just finished processing about 160 lbs. of elk meat, and there is a stew in the slow cooker.

Hank77 said:

So Might a car, a steak knife, a power tool, a chain saw (ever seen a tree twist when it falls?), we Could go on and on.

Click to expand...

This argument is often used but it really is not appropriate. Yes, all sorts of things like cars, knives, baseball bats, etc can cause grievous injury. But these things all have arguably important and non-harmful primary uses - the gun's only purpose is to injure or kill. That's an important and relevant difference.
You see a gun can be a dangerous weapon, I see a car can be a dangerous weapon. But I see the Real dangerous weapon can be the person using either one.

Hank77 said:

I just heard yesterday that my neighbor finally cornered...

Click to expand...

I am not denying that, in some special cases, it is appropriate for a Christian to have a gun. But self-defence is not really one of them. Even if we set aside Biblical arguments to the effect that we are called to "beat swords into plowshares", it is manifestly clear that almost all free western societies are markedly safer for their citizens than the US. And yet guns are very restricted in these countries.

An unanswered question I suggested earlier: Is it in compliance with the wisdom and teaching of Jesus to use human laws to control another person by government edict (force), such as is the case with gun control laws? IMHO, owning a gun has no bearing on whether or not you are a disciple of Jesus, but forcibly controlling others is unquestionably contrary to the way of Jesus.

Ned Netterville said:

An unanswered question I suggested earlier: Is it in compliance with the wisdom and teaching of Jesus to use human laws to control another person by government edict (force), such as is the case with gun control laws?

Click to expand...

Of course it is.

There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus that remotely endorses this notion that the government should not be in the business of regulating and managing the tendency for human beings to act destructively towards one another.

expos4ever said:

Of course it is.

There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus that remotely endorses this notion that the government should not be in the business of regulating and managing the tendency for human beings to act destructively towards one another.

Click to expand...

We do have laws against that, it's called arrest and prison. Not punishing the innocent for what the guilty do.

Aldebaran said:

Yep! I was directly under one when I was 6. I don't remember it actually happening, but I was told that it twisted and turned about 90 degrees in my direction and landed on me.

Click to expand...

You are fortunate to be alive, Praise the Lord.

I want to answer the OP:

1. as mentioned before the "turn the other cheek" is about not seeking revenge, not about self defense.
2. many use the US as a negative example of civilian gun ownership, but most countries with civilian gun ownership show that gun ownership and violence are not correlated. For example, the safest country in Europe is Switzerland, and Switzerland has the highest gun ownership in Europe.
3. Australian culture is very anti-gun, and there is a lot of anti-gun propaganda there that is just plain deceptive. For example, anti-gun people will often use the very misleading statistic of "gun deaths" to prove that countries with guns are more unsafe. Of course a country with guns will have more gun deaths than countries without! That's as silly as saying that a hospital is more dangerous because more people die in them. The RIGHT statistic is to look at raw homicide rates: if a country has guns - the question is, is the overall homicide rate higher in that country compared with countries without guns? Here's the answer to that question:

These statistics are taken from a gun control website - so no-one can accuse these statistics as being wrong.

4. The Australian massacre death rate since 1996 is 3 times higher than Canada, even though Canada has 50% more people. Why is that when about 1/4 of Canadian homes has a gun? The answer is because Australians are a more violent people and Australian crazy people use predominantly arson for massacres, which is a far more destructive mass casualty weapon. In fact in Xiamen, China - a person used gasoline to kill 47 people - almost twice as many as Sandy Hook:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiamen_bus_fire

5. How do you stop Australians and Chinese from using arson to kill people? Ban gasoline? Ban matches? The answer to this question will show how foolish it is to ban guns. The fact that you're okay with a policeman or farmer to have a gun, shows that you inherently believe that there are GOOD uses for guns. Why does a policeman have a gun? it's not, as you think, to protect you. It is for SELF defense! Protection is necessarily a PROACTIVE duty - you will have to stand guard like a President's bodyguard to "protect". Do you have a policeman standing outside your door? Of course not! A policeman can only react to violence when it's already happened. So if you understand in your mind, that a policeman carries a gun primarily for self defense and a policeman is the "right" person to own a gun, then you understand that people who also need to defend others: like parents, are the "right" people to own a gun.

6. Guns are neither good nor bad. They are used by good people for good things (protection of life) or bad people for bad things. Judging by all the gang-related gun violence in Australia, you surely realize by now that bad guys can get guns as surely as they can get drugs (also banned!). When you ban guns, the only people who are made impotent are law-abiding citizens. The balance of power shifts to the criminals because they by definition will not follow laws. Does that make sense to do? Of course not! It's pure idiocy to disempower yourself and other GOOD people so that criminals can have more power. Yet people who are afraid of guns are not motivated by logic - but by emotion, and fear is a powerful emotion, and this causes people afraid of guns to become victimized by the very things they fear: because they advocate disempowering themselves of the only tool that can counter evil: a firearm.

7. Anti-gun people like to suggest a lot of ridiculous anti-gun self defense tactics - none of which these same people expect the police (professionals) to follow when they dial 911 (or 000 in Australia). Does it make sense that an anti-gun person's #1 plan when in mortal danger is to call people armed with guns to save them? Idiocy! Do you see the break in logic in anti-gun thinking?

8. Case in point: Sandy Hook. Anti-gun people focus on the 26 people killed by an AR15 by Adam Lanza. But they forgot the 100 cops who came with AR15s to save the 1000 kids. So are AR15s good or bad? Did they kill 26 people or save 1000? You see the stupidity in blaming an object? The problem has NEVER been about more guns or less guns, or guns are bad or guns are good. This issue is about making sure the RIGHT person has a gun, and the WRONG person doesn't have a gun. The parent protecting their child is the RIGHT person to own a gun, and if you fight to deny that parent the right to defend his family then YOU are responsible for anything that happens to that family. Can you be responsible for that?

expos4ever said:

This argument is often used but it really is not appropriate. Yes, all sorts of things like cars, knives, baseball bats, etc can cause grievous injury. But these things all have arguably important and non-harmful primary uses - the gun's only purpose is to injure or kill. That's an important and relevant difference.
You see a gun can be a dangerous weapon, I see a car can be a dangerous weapon. But I see the Real dangerous weapon can be the person using either one.


I am not denying that, in some special cases, it is appropriate for a Christian to have a gun. But self-defence is not really one of them. Even if we set aside Biblical arguments to the effect that we are called to "beat swords into plowshares", it is manifestly clear that almost all free western societies are markedly safer for their citizens than the US. And yet guns are very restricted in these countries.

Click to expand...

What is your plan if someone breaks into your home? And please don't say "call the cops" - because they have guns, and protection of life using firearms is obviously bad to you.

Also - you say "only purpose to kill" as if that's a bad thing. Cops used guns to protect 1000 children in Sandy Hook. In the process of the very noble act of preservation of life, they KILLED Adam Lanza. Think about that.

When someone threatens your loved ones with violence, violence is needed to protect them. Whether it is punching someone in the face, stabbing them or shooting them - whatever is needed - it must be done to protect your loved ones. Period. When you call the cops, which I sense you will hypocritically do (assume the cop shop is next door to your house giving them enough time to actually respond), they will use guns to kill someone who is murdering your family. Period. Is killing a bad thing?

I would suggest you're focusing on the WRONG thing. Guns are necessary for the protection of life. Period. Cops using them for this purpose daily is irrefutable proof of this.

supescritter said:

When someone threatens your loved ones with violence, violence is needed to protect them.

Click to expand...

The relevant question is what would Jesus say about the use of force in such circumstances.

expos4ever said:

The relevant question is what would Jesus say about the use of force in such circumstances.

Click to expand...

You are free to step aside and let someone intent on harming your children to proceed unhindered. I will not stop you from your inaction.

I would suggest that if you think it's okay to call a cop in that situation, assuming one is standing round the corner, that you are advocating violence - because that's exactly what the cop will be doing to stop the bad guy.

But you're not going to call the cop because you think Jesus doesn't advocate self defense right? Only bad guys are allowed to kill people right? Good people must do nothing in your world view?

I once heard a pastor say something and it has stayed with me always: major on the major, and minor on the minor. Self-righteous Christians love to extrapolate and invent laws on themselves and others when the Bible is not clear on the issue. Don't bother - if the Bible says DON'T do something, DON'T do it. Otherwise don't just make up rules of what you shouldn't do.

The 10 commandments says "do not murder" - it doesn't say "do not kill". There's a big difference, and the difference, as eloquently stated in the Matthew 5: 21-30 is MOTIVATION.

Aldebaran said:

I doubt He would say, "Let the burglar rape your wife and then kill you and your children". Sometimes, we just have to use common sense. But if I had a family and allowed them to be murdered in front of me because I didn't believe in violence, it would be a hard thing to try to explain to the police, or anyone else when they ask, "Why didn't you stop him when you had the chance rather than just stand there?"

Click to expand...

I think the guilt and shame you would face would be the answer to that question "what would Jesus do" and would haunt you the rest of your life.

And come to think of it, the whole "what would Jesus do" is such a stupid question in the first place. I strongly suggest we DO NOT use that as a benchmark for living. We are told to live by the Bible. Period. It's God's word for our guidance. Not to live our lives by our own biased predispositions of an imaginary Jesus in some hypothetical situation. Such irrational thinking can be used to justify ALL manners of bad and ill-conceived actions.

There's a million things that I do, that Jesus probably wouldn't do. Doesn't mean I am wrong to do them. I strapped myself to a gyroscope the other day, just for the heck of it. Oh no - did I sin because "Jesus wouldn't have done that" - apparently many Christians would believe so.