Gun Ownership

Is it wrong to own a gun?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

BeOfGoodCheer

Romans 8:38-39
Oct 2, 2011
107
8
United States
✟15,277.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
rturner76 said:
Thou Shalt not kill

With malice and aforethought, no, of course not. Look at many examples in the Bible of being ready to stand against evil, though.

We are each called to be different parts of the body. This is like debating meat or no meat. Do whatsoever to the Glory of God.

It comes down to the heart. I like what was said before, " guns are amoral". My choice to exercise my freedom in the country God placed me in, is between me and God, and no one else. It's not my place to judge your walk. The OP wanted to know if God said something black and white about guns. I think the discussion is showing this is a personal matter that should be offered up to God.
 
Upvote 0

Darkhorse

just horsing around
Aug 10, 2005
10,078
3,977
mid-Atlantic
Visit site
✟288,141.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thou Shalt not kill

The correct translation is "Do not murder"

Murder is intentional killing out of malace, not out of self-defense.

Murder, manslaughter, warfare, execution, and justifiable homocide are all homocide, but only the first two are illegal. The last three are condoned in the Bible under certain circumstances.

Jesus didn't fight the crowd coming to arrest Him, but He reminded Peter that it wasn't for lack of ability. Jesus accepted the cup His Father gave Him, and allowed Himself to be sacrificed for our sins. :holy:
 
Upvote 0

Crusader05

Veteran
Jan 23, 2005
2,354
371
Omaha, NE
✟22,762.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you guys constantly living in fear of being shot by some lunatic every time you leave your house?

The gun culture in the States is a strange phenomenon.

No, I'm not. But I like knowing I have a gun in case I need it. You can't assume the police will always be there when you need them and people have a right to self-defense.

I recently bought my first hand gun not because I'm paranoid about being robbed but because I like guns, I like shooting and I like knowing I have it there just in case. I have no problem following the laws of my state in respect to how I buy, store and carry my weapon.
 
Upvote 0

Blackmarch

Legend
Oct 23, 2004
12,221
325
42
Utah, USA
✟32,616.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
I got in an argument at work today with a guy who's anti-gun, anti-meat, etc... over the topics of gun ownership and hunting.

He tried to insist that "you are all misreading the constitution", and "what about the rights of the animals?", and "gun ownership is what contributes to high crime & murder rates"

Now, being a gun owner myself (I don't hunt, but I do enjoy sport pistol shooting) I took exception to some of the comments he was making.

I don't think owning gun is wrong in anyway. I've had over 120 hours of in class training on gun safety and gun laws, and countless hours of practice on the range. I've never had an accidental discharge of any kind.

Do you think there's anything wrong with gun ownership?
in my experience pro-gun sentiment generally goes too far, as does anti gun sentiment.

THe constitution is very short and not descriptive about bearing arms for a good reason- it allows the courts/congress wiggle room in intrepreting it.

Personally I vote more gun law restrictions (ie have to go through more hoops to obtain and keep a gun and permit, as well as certain weapons should not be available to the publicat least not without even more vigourous).. But I also would vote having required training, use, and ethics classes as part of the education system for weapons use and personal defense, and having gun production/sales more integrated and systemized on a national level.

I also think gun ownership is fine, and I think more people should look into it. But on the other hand there are quite a few cases where its easy to become an owner without much of the responsibility that's required for it, or being psychologically ready for it.
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
No, I'm not. But I like knowing I have a gun in case I need it. You can't assume the police will always be there when you need them and people have a right to self-defense.

I recently bought my first hand gun not because I'm paranoid about being robbed but because I like guns, I like shooting and I like knowing I have it there just in case. I have no problem following the laws of my state in respect to how I buy, store and carry my weapon.

5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think | Cracked.com

See number 4 on the website.

This type of thinking is totally illogical and grounded in fear.

Think about lightning. On any given day, you don't concern yourself with being worried about being struck by lightning. However, if the clouds look stormy and you're in the middle of a field on top of a metal pole, you may consider that you should get off the pole and seek shelter. At this point, you may want to remember a few things about protecting yourself from lightning. But not every day.

Similarly with a gun. Maybe I could understand you carrying a gun if you're walking through a really shoddy dark alley in a sketchy neighborhood at 2 am while wearing a t-shirt that says, "I have $10,000 in my wallet". This would be a legitimate time to think about protecting yourself from thieves and murderers. But not every day. Not when you go to the bank, or the grocery store or work or tea with your granny.

Its illogical. Its perpetuating fear-based thinking that says, "the world is out to get me".

Have a good time with the gun at the shooting range, or hunting, or using it as a tool on farms. These are excellent and wonderful uses for a gun.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,746
14,620
Here
✟1,211,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Lol--"guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Take an amount of time--say, 2 minutes. Figure out how many people you could kill with your bare hands in that amount of time. Figure out how many people you could kill with a particular type of gun in that amount of time.

Subtract.

That's how many people were killed simply due to the possession of the gun.

No, that's how many people were killed due to the desire of the individual to kill someone.
 
Upvote 0

acropolis

so rad
Jan 29, 2008
3,676
277
✟20,293.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Very few people are actually capable of shooting another person, even when they're life is in danger. The majority of people would be better served with non-lethal means of self-defense rather than a tool which will force them to decide to end someone's life or not, a decision that most will refuse to make.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,746
14,620
Here
✟1,211,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What we need to realise is that carrying a semi-automatic weapon around an urban area has nothing to do with hunting or any other legitimate purpose. Many guns are designed simply to maim or kill other human beings. The ownership of these guns ought to be absolutely illegal.

As for the Constitutionality, the Constitution specifically allows for a well-armed militia in order to protect against tyranny.

First off, laws like this would only disarm the honest people. You think any anti-gun law is just going to cause criminals to skip down to the police station and turn in their gun?

Second, here's what the constitution said:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[

If you read the writings of several of our founding fathers, they explain that the people bearing arms is what keeps the militia well regulated. Essentially, the people have the right to protect themselves from the government and our own military if need be to prevent a police state.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,746
14,620
Here
✟1,211,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
without national press coverage, every day.






Gun Deaths & Injuries
Gun Deaths & Race
Domestic Violence
Costs of Gun Violence
Gun Ownership
Gun Crimes
Youth - Gun Violence & Gun Access
Dangers of Gun Use For Self-Defense
The Dangers of Handguns
Dangers of Permissive CCW Laws
International/Comparative Statistics
Guns in the Home/Safe Storage
Guns in the Workplace
Guns in Schools
Guns on Campus
Gun Trafficking/Private Sales
Gun Shows
Multiple Sales/Purchases
Assault Weapons/Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines
Non-Powder Guns
Personalized Firearms
Learn More
Gun Deaths & Injuries

In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1

69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.2

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.3

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.5

Homicide

Guns were used in 12,632 homicides in 2007, comprising over 40% of all gun deaths, and nearly 69% of all homicides.6

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2002-2007.7

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.9

Suicide

Firearms were used in 17,352 suicides in 2007, constituting 55% of all gun deaths.10

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.11

On average, 46 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2001-2007.12

White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2007.13

A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.14

Firearms were used in 45% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2007.15

More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.16

The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.17

Unintentional Deaths & Injuries

In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.18

From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.20

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).23






Just sayin'

Well, lets start by eliminating suicides from the list. Not having a gun around isn't going to stop anyone who really wants to off themselves.

Even without omitting that, it's still below the number of accidental auto deaths in the US. So should cars be made illegal?

Heart disease deaths dwarf handgun deaths, if a handgun is an agent of murder, then bacon is a WMD.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,746
14,620
Here
✟1,211,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Very few people are actually capable of shooting another person, even when they're life is in danger. The majority of people would be better served with non-lethal means of self-defense rather than a tool which will force them to decide to end someone's life or not, a decision that most will refuse to make.

That's why you aim for the leg.
 
Upvote 0

acropolis

so rad
Jan 29, 2008
3,676
277
✟20,293.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
I'm not a supporter of total bans, or even most regulation, but I'm so sick of weak arguments being used to justify gun ownership. Bans never eliminate, but they do significantly raise the cost of acquisition, which lowers the number of people who are able to get whatever it is. How many broke idiots would be able to rob a liquor store with a gun if getting a gun took thousands of dollars and the right connections, as well as carried a constant threat of getting caught? A ban on guns would certainly reduce the number of people able to get them and would in that way reduce gun violence. Whether or not that would reduce crime or even violent crime overall is another issue.

Also the second amendment is predicated on the need for a 'well regulated militia,' which can easily be interpreted in such a way that not just every joe schmo can get a gun. Furthermore, whether or not people should have guns has nothing to do with the legal opinions of a small bunch of guys hundreds of years ago. What matters is: should guns be legal now? Whether it is currently legal to own them has no ethical bearing on the matter.
 
Upvote 0

acropolis

so rad
Jan 29, 2008
3,676
277
✟20,293.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
That's why you aim for the leg.

I question how much you actually know about proper firearm use if you make statements like this. One of the fundamental rules of guns is that you only fire at something you want dead. If you don't intend to kill then don't take the shot, period.
 
Upvote 0

Robbie_James_Francis

May all beings have happiness and its causes
Apr 12, 2005
9,317
661
34
England, UK
✟20,261.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
First off, laws like this would only disarm the honest people. You think any anti-gun law is just going to cause criminals to skip down to the police station and turn in their gun?

Nope. But it would help pull in a lot of dishonest people before they hurt someone rather than after.

Second, here's what the constitution said:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[

If you read the writings of several of our founding fathers, they explain that the people bearing arms is what keeps the militia well regulated. Essentially, the people have the right to protect themselves from the government and our own military if need be to prevent a police state.
It shall not be infringed. Fair enough. If we're going to be fundamentalist about the Second Amendment that gives every citizen the right to be "well armed" in protection against the state. Now, Iraq had no WMD, and the architects of that occupation knew it. And they were murdered in their millions. North Korea definitely does have nuclear weapons, and the US doesn't dare touch it. So if you want to protect yourself against the US government, the best way is to get nukes. So why does the Second Amendment give you the right to a little handgun (useless when your government has tanks, missiles and automatic weapons), but not a nuke in your back yard?

I'm all for preventing governmental tyranny, but the fact is it cannot be done based on ordinary violence. Their capacity is so superior, a gun, even in the hand of every citizen, will make no difference.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Girder of Loins

Future Math Teacher
Dec 5, 2010
2,869
130
30
United States of America
✟18,961.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It shall not be infringed. Fair enough. If we're going to be fundamentalist about the Second Amendment that gives every citizen the right to be "well armed" in protection against the state. Now, Iraq had no WMD, and the architects of that occupation knew it. And they were murdered in their millions. North Korea definitely does have nuclear weapons, and the US doesn't dare touch it. So if you want to protect yourself against the US government, the best way is to get nukes. So why does the Second Amendment give you the right to a little handgun (useless when your government has tanks, missiles and automatic weapons), but not a nuke in your back yard?

Technically, one can purchase an Abrams tank, but you can't legally operate it. You can also purchase fully automatic weapons if they were made before 1960-something. Of course, if you have the right permits(which usually mean you have to serve in the military, but not always), you can own and operate anything. So, by the Second Amendment, you have the power to own any weapon you want, it may just require more than a hop, skip, and a jump down to the local "nuke" store.
 
Upvote 0

AceHero

Veteran
Sep 10, 2005
4,469
451
36
✟21,933.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Operating a car safely is far more complex than operating a gun safely, and cars kill more people every year than guns do.

Do you think it's ethical to own a car? :confused:

I think that's a legitimate question. Americans are obsessed with the automobile just as they are with the gun. Neither makes sense.

Are you guys constantly living in fear of being shot by some lunatic every time you leave your house?

The gun culture in the States is a strange phenomenon.

Totally agree. I live in a city without a gun and I feel perfectly safe.

Essentially, the people have the right to protect themselves from the government and our own military if need be to prevent a police state.

So, in other words, paranoia.
 
Upvote 0

Vatis

Newbie
Mar 29, 2010
183
9
✟15,357.00
Faith
Atheist
I think that's a legitimate question. Americans are obsessed with the automobile just as they are with the gun. Neither makes sense.

It's easy. Cars exist to travel, not to kill. Accidents with cars are a tolerated side-effect, because they are so essential to the US lifestyle.
Guns however only serve to kill people or for entertainment purposes.
Still, I don't think guns should be illegal on the condition of passing an apititude test in gun safety and having no criminal record.
Shooting guns can be great fun, and people who like shooting should be damn well able to. However the argument that guns are for protection is...well flawed at best. I think pro-gun people would have much more integrity if they just honestly admitted that they want guns because they enjoy shooting and owning firearms.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BeOfGoodCheer

Romans 8:38-39
Oct 2, 2011
107
8
United States
✟15,277.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Vatis said:
However the argument that guns are for protection is...well flawed at best.

Explain that thought, please.

Ever look into gun laws and Kennesaw, Georgia?

Ever back away from a growling dog, a skunk with it's tail up, a charging bull? No injury may ever occur with any of these, but it provides protection for them. Same way a gun can provide protection for a person IMHO.
 
Upvote 0