Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[ViaCrucis]

None - this was settled when the Constitution and its Amendments were written.

1) A Constitutional Amendment is, by its very definition, a modification to the US Constitution. And that's happened 27 times since the Constitution itself was written. The first 10 of those were added even before it was ratified. The last amendment, the 27th, was made in 1992, only 31 years ago.

2) I was speaking of a Christian perspective, and the 2nd Amendment of the United States is irrelevant to that. The US Constitution has nothing to do with the Christian religion or with Christian morality.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

The US military uses the M4 carbine, which is a variant of the AR-15, but it significantly differs from most AR-15s that civilians can buy. Soldiers don't typically use magazines any larger than the standard size. The M4 can be set for semi-auto fire or 3-round burst.

M4s may often be equipped with similar accessories to the ones you'll see on civilian owned AR-15s, but they outperform most of these weapons. A civilian with a vertical grip and a drum magazine on an AR-15 is not going to be better than a typical soldier with a M4, but that's less to do with the weapon and more to do with training. All the fears people have about accessories and large mags miss the mark, when the real issue is that a lot of people aren't armed and aren't trained how to use a weapon. Whether a mass shooter has a drum mag or some accessory on their rifle, it's not going to make that much of a difference in terms of lethality if their targets aren't also armed. Most mass shootings don't even involve rifles and instead involve handguns. It's easier to try and pass a ban on rifles, however, since the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled in favor of limiting rifle bans (but has limited handgun bans).

In terms of self-defense, magazine limits for handguns or rifles ultimately benefit criminals, if they know that a law-abiding citizen only has a certain number of bullets to fire before reloading.

Having spent 26 years in the military, I'm aware of what the military uses and why.

And I mentioned magazines as merely one of the differences between the AR-15 and comparable weapons such as the Ruger Mini-14 that make the AR-15 more suitable for assaulting human targets than weapons like the Mini-14. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise.

 

[Photon Guy]

It also helps in killing humans more efficiently as well.

But it's useful for hunting.
Just because something can be used for stuff it's not supposed to be used for doesn't mean it should be banned from those who use it for what it is supposed to be used for.

 

[Photon Guy]

But that seems like a straw-man. I really don't know many, Christian or otherwise, making an argument of banning all firearms period.

Believe it or not such people exist.

 

[Photon Guy]

Having spent 26 years in the military, I'm aware of what the military uses and why.

And I mentioned magazines as merely one of the differences between the AR-15 and comparable weapons such as the Ruger Mini-14 that make the AR-15 more suitable for assaulting human targets than weapons like the Mini-14. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that the M-16 was the staple rifle of the American infantryman, which is a full automatic. With your background you would know all about this but I thought that most of the weapons used by soldiers were full automatics not semi automatics. The only semi automatics used by soldiers, or so I thought, were the handguns sometimes carried as sidearms.

 

[JosephZ]

But it's useful for hunting.
Just because something can be used for stuff it's not supposed to be used for doesn't mean it should be banned from those who use it for what it is supposed to be used for.

I haven't seen any proposals for banning rifles for simply having a pistol grip.

 

[RDKirk]

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that the M-16 was the staple rifle of the American infantryman, which is a full automatic. With your background you would know all about this but I thought that most of the weapons used by soldiers were full automatics not semi automatics. The only semi automatics used by soldiers, or so I thought, were the handguns sometimes carried as sidearms.

I'm going to cut and paste this, because you're just going in circles:

Those "cosmetic" features exist on combat weapons because they do make a difference in combat. Otherwise the Army could just use a fully automatic Mini-14.

A weapon suitable for combat involves more than the one feature of being fully automatic. The only thing the AR-15 lacks is the fully automatic option, but in every other way it is more suitable for combat than a hunting rifle.

 

[Aldebaran]

A weapon suitable for combat involves more than the one feature of being fully automatic. The only thing the AR-15 lacks is the fully automatic option, but in every other way it is more suitable for combat than a hunting rifle.

And yet many people choose it for hunting. I'm pretty sure that if they did so just to "look cool" while out in the woods (to the deer perhaps), they'd quickly decide otherwise if it didn't prove to be effective. Building A Custom AR-15 Hunting Rifle | Great Days Outdoors

 

[Eschatologist]

Having spent 26 years in the military, I'm aware of what the military uses and why.

And I mentioned magazines as merely one of the differences between the AR-15 and comparable weapons such as the Ruger Mini-14 that make the AR-15 more suitable for assaulting human targets than weapons like the Mini-14. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Photon's point still stands, however. As defined by most legislation, "assault weapons" are much broader than the same category that the military defines. More often than not, that phrase is used by lawmakers to refer to nearly all AR-15 variants, despite the fact that the AR-10 (which is not usually included) is designed more for lethality. The AR-15 platform was redesigned at a time when maiming enemy soldiers was emphasized more, since tending to a wounded soldier takes more resources than tending to the dead.

The AR-15 is often targeted by legislation because of its popularity, affordability, and ease of use and maintenance. It's not really about lethality. And statistically, it's not as commonly used for mass murder as handguns (at least outside of war).

 

[Eschatologist]

1) A Constitutional Amendment is, by its very definition, a modification to the US Constitution. And that's happened 27 times since the Constitution itself was written. The first 10 of those were added even before it was ratified. The last amendment, the 27th, was made in 1992, only 31 years ago.

2) I was speaking of a Christian perspective, and the 2nd Amendment of the United States is irrelevant to that. The US Constitution has nothing to do with the Christian religion or with Christian morality.

-CryptoLutheran

When considering that the Founders were mostly Deist, Christian morals had a heavy influence on the Constitution. Also, the Constitution explicitly declares our rights to be from God.

Obviously, Christians can differ on whether the Constitution is consistent with Christian morality, but it was indisputably inspired by Christianity.

 

[Eschatologist]

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that the M-16 was the staple rifle of the American infantryman, which is a full automatic. With your background you would know all about this but I thought that most of the weapons used by soldiers were full automatics not semi automatics. The only semi automatics used by soldiers, or so I thought, were the handguns sometimes carried as sidearms.

The M4 is the current standard issue rifle. The M16 preceded it.

 

[Eschatologist]

I haven't seen any proposals for banning rifles for simply having a pistol grip.

Multiple states have gone much further than that. Virginia attempted to ban all semi-auto rifles (but failed), and Washington is about to pass a ban on sales and importation that covers basically all semi-auto rifles.

 

[JosephZ]

Multiple states have gone much further than that. Virginia attempted to ban all semi-auto rifles (but failed), and Washington is about to pass a ban on sales and importation that covers basically all semi-auto rifles.

Do you have a source for this?

 

[Eschatologist]

Do you have a source for this?

Washington state bans sale of most semi-automatic rifles

Citizens can still own assault-style rifles — but they will not be able to buy or import most AR-type weapons after HB 1240 is signed.

crosscut.com

 

[RDKirk]

The AR-15 platform was redesigned at a time when maiming enemy soldiers was emphasized more, since tending to a wounded soldier takes more resources than tending to the dead.

No. Wounding the enemy has never been consideration....that's a myth. There has never been a US military ammunition design specification of "wound but not kill."

The military always considers it better for an enemy successfully struck to be dead. Furthermore, none of the prospective enemies of the US commonly expends much in the way of resources to tend to wounded soldiers (not like the US does). The Viet Cong certainly didn't.

One of the primary considerations in US rifle caliber design and selection is weight. The military tries to get the best balance of lethality and cartridge weight so that the soldier can carry as many rounds as possible. Currently, US soldiers go out on patrol with about 216 rounds of .223 ammunition. They're commonly carrying, all told, about 90 pounds of gear.

The AR-15 is often targeted by legislation because of its popularity, affordability, and ease of use and maintenance. It's not really about lethality. And statistically, it's not as commonly used for mass murder as handguns (at least outside of war).

It's targeted by legislation because it attracts the most public attention...and it does tend to be the weapon of choice of murderers who want to attract the most public attention. Those factors feed on one another.

 

[JosephZ]

Washington state bans sale of most semi-automatic rifles

Citizens can still own assault-style rifles — but they will not be able to buy or import most AR-type weapons after HB 1240 is signed.

crosscut.com

Below is how the law reads. There are 62 "assault style" rifles listed.

(a) "Assault weapon" means:

(i) Any of the following specific firearms regardless of which company produced and manufactured the firearm: (See list at link)

(ii) A semiautomatic rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches;

(iii) A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled or from which a firearm can be converted into an assault weapon if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person; or

(iv) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(A) A grip that is independent or detached from the stock that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. The addition of a fin attaching the grip to the stock does not exempt the grip if it otherwise resembles the grip found on a pistol;
(B) Thumbhole stock;
(C) Folding or telescoping stock;
(D) Forward pistol, vertical, angled, or other grip designed for use by the nonfiring hand to improve control;
(E) Flash suppressor, flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider, sound suppressor, silencer, or any item designed to reduce the visual or audio signature of the firearm;
(F) Muzzle brake, recoil compensator, or any item designed to be affixed to the barrel to reduce recoil or muzzle rise;
(G) Threaded barrel designed to attach a flash suppressor, sound suppressor, muzzle break, or similar item;
(H) Grenade launcher or flare launcher; or
(I) A shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer's hand from heat, except a solid forearm of a stock that covers only the bottom of the barrel;

(v) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1240-S.SL.pdf?q=20230506142846

The definition of an "assault style" weapon in the new law and those in the list appear reasonable to me at first glance.

Do you have a source for Virginia trying to ban all semi-automatic rifles?

 

[Aldebaran]

Below is how the law reads. There are 62 "assault style" rifles listed.

(a) "Assault weapon" means:

(i) Any of the following specific firearms regardless of which company produced and manufactured the firearm: (See list at link)

(ii) A semiautomatic rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches;

(iii) A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled or from which a firearm can be converted into an assault weapon if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person; or

(iv) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(A) A grip that is independent or detached from the stock that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. The addition of a fin attaching the grip to the stock does not exempt the grip if it otherwise resembles the grip found on a pistol;
(B) Thumbhole stock;
(C) Folding or telescoping stock;
(D) Forward pistol, vertical, angled, or other grip designed for use by the nonfiring hand to improve control;
(E) Flash suppressor, flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider, sound suppressor, silencer, or any item designed to reduce the visual or audio signature of the firearm;
(F) Muzzle brake, recoil compensator, or any item designed to be affixed to the barrel to reduce recoil or muzzle rise;
(G) Threaded barrel designed to attach a flash suppressor, sound suppressor, muzzle break, or similar item;
(H) Grenade launcher or flare launcher; or
(I) A shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer's hand from heat, except a solid forearm of a stock that covers only the bottom of the barrel;

(v) A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/House/1240-S.SL.pdf?q=20230506142846

The definition of an "assault style" weapon in the new law and those in the list appear reasonable to me at first glance.

Do you have a source for Virginia trying to ban all semi-automatic rifles?

Now, how many of those characteristics of a firearm can demonstrated to be able to make a firearm more lethal? I see very few. Most are just cosmetic features.

 

[JosephZ]

Now, how many of those characteristics of a firearm can demonstrated to be able to make a firearm more lethal?

More lethal probably isnt the right term; more efficient in killing would be a better term to use. The following or a combination of the following would make a firearm more efficient in killing:

• A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled or from which a firearm can be converted into an assault weapon
• A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine
• A grip that is independent or detached from the stock that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
• Thumbhole stock;
• Folding or telescoping stock;
• Forward pistol, vertical, angled, or other grip designed for use by the nonfiring hand to improve control;
• A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;

A semiautomatic rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches would be beneficial in manuvering in closed quarters; crowds, department stores, schools, etc.

 

[Aldebaran]

More lethal probably isnt the right term; more efficient in killing would be a better term to use. The following or a combination of the following would make a firearm more efficient in killing:

• A conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled or from which a firearm can be converted into an assault weapon
• A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine
• A grip that is independent or detached from the stock that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
• Thumbhole stock;
• Folding or telescoping stock;
• Forward pistol, vertical, angled, or other grip designed for use by the nonfiring hand to improve control;
• A semiautomatic, center fire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;

A semiautomatic rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches would be beneficial in manuvering in closed quarters; crowds, department stores, schools, etc.

A pistol is less than 30". Should they be banned for being even more "beneficial in manuvering in closed quarters"?

A pistol also has a pistol grip, and even a mag release right there where it can quickly be pushed by a thumb for quick mag changes.

A pistol is also semiauto, and accepts detachable magazines.

Best yet, a pistol is far more concealable than any "assault rifle" and can be brought to more public places unnoticed.

Maybe it's not any type of rifle that is a real threat here.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When considering that the Founders were mostly Deist, Christian morals had a heavy influence on the Constitution. Also, the Constitution explicitly declares our rights to be from God.

Deism isn't Christianity. Deism was a philosophical view that arose out of the European Enlightenment and, at least in part, was a reaction against organized religion. The Enligtenment championed reason over faith, and was a response to the wars of religion which had plagued Europe since the time of the Reformation. While not getting into everything on that; what is important to point out here is that Deism has nothing to do with Christianity.

I don't know that saying "Christian morals had a heavy influence on the Constitution" is as strong an argument as some would like it to be. I think people would like to think this is true, but isn't really.

Obviously, Christians can differ on whether the Constitution is consistent with Christian morality, but it was indisputably inspired by Christianity.

I believe, at least historically, it far more accurate to say the Constitution is a product of the Enlightenement and the secular philosophies of the time. Such things can only be said to be "Christian" in the thinnest and most shallowest sense of the term, in much the same way that one can argue that the works of Shakespeare or Chaucer are "Christian" in that they arose out of a nominally Christian civilization. But to call nominally Christian civilization "Christian" is, itself, rather problematic and betrays the sanctity of our religion and the Lord whose precious blood has ransomed us from the powers and principalities of this fallen world.

-CryptoLutheran