Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[JosephZ]

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

There needs to be a limit on magazine capacity for handguns.

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.

All true, but the subject we were discussing was rifles.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Why do you think the military adds those features to combat rifles in addition to their being fully automatic?

Just to be "tacticool?"

 

[RDKirk]

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.

The Declaration of Independence has some deistic thought as well as some Aristotelian thought. The Constitution...not so much. I'd be interested in someone pointing out the clause in the Constitution that is uniquely Christian and nothing else.

The first Amendment is pretty straight from Roger Williams, and Roger Williams brought the concept of "separation of Church and State" to America. In fact, Roger Williams coined "separation of Church and State," although he didn't invent the concept. In further fact, the existence of the First Amendment is because the state Roger Williams' founded (Rhode Island) refused to ratify the Constitution without a written guarantee of the separation of Church and State.

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

Yes. We can say that everything, including Enlightenment thought, has been "tainted" by Christian thought that had been by then embedded into European culture. But that doesn't make it Christian.

 

[Eschatologist]

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.

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.

If it's the weapon that is intended to attract the most attention, then why are most mass shootings done with handguns? Every mass shooter is aiming for "attention."

 

[Eschatologist]

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?

If that appears reasonable to you, then you are in favor of banning most semiautomatic rifles.

Here is a source about Virginia.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/17/806663375/virginia-governors-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons-fails-with-help-from-his-own-part

 

[Eschatologist]

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.



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

The morals of most secular people in the West are Christian in origin regardless of how much they may want to deny it. Secular humanism is just a version of Christianity without God, for the most part. Atheists and agnostics in the West are quite different from the same groups in places like Turkey, for example.

So, you can't really divorce the Enlightenment from Christianity. The Enlightenment itself wouldn't exist, were it not for Christianity. There's a good reason it didn't derive from the Islamic World, for example.

It doesn't "betray the sanctity of Christianity" to connect the Constitution with Christianity. If anything, denying its influence downplays how important Christianity has been for the development of the US. And the way that this society has declined in morality is precisely because of how much mainstream society wants to discard that influence in favor of materialism, collectivism, race Marxism, gender theory, feminism, and the LGBT nonsense. It's fallen precisely because of how we have let our government, media, and academia dilute and discard faith.

 

[Eschatologist]

There needs to be a limit on magazine capacity for handguns.


All true, but the subject we were discussing was rifles.

Why should there be a limit? Law-abiding citizens might comply with that, but criminals won't.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If it's the weapon that is intended to attract the most attention, then why are most mass shootings done with handguns? Every mass shooter is aiming for "attention."

Which is why I believe that one way to stop or slow them down has nothing to do with guns instead they should not report on them as much. I am not saying to not say a word, but whether to report it and move on do not spend hours talking about it ( as was the case with a recent local shooting. Do not mentioning shootings that happened years ago and comparing shootings report on it it happened OK move on. This would also likely help the families of any deceased.

 

[RDKirk]

If it's the weapon that is intended to attract the most attention, then why are most mass shootings done with handguns? Every mass shooter is aiming for "attention."

Most incidents that are charted as "mass shootings" are criminal incidents or incidents of personal violence. Most of those are done with handguns and there is no intention to attract public attention because the intention is usually to kill specific individuals (although there might be any concern about collateral deaths).

When an AR-15 is used, more often it's to attract public attention, and the intention is to kill as many people as possible.

 

[Eschatologist]

Which is why I believe that one way to stop or slow them down has nothing to do with guns instead they should not report on them as much. I am not saying to not say a word, but whether to report it and move on do not spend hours talking about it ( as was the case with a recent local shooting. Do not mentioning shootings that happened years ago and comparing shootings report on it it happened OK move on. This would also likely help the families of any deceased.

I could support the media not mentioning the name of the shooter in reports to lower the "infamy" involved, but discussing past shootings is probably a good thing. It's also good to discuss the motives of shootings. Granted, a lot of the motives will be ignored or downplayed, because they often go against the narrative. The current administration wants us to believe that white supremacists are the greatest domestic threat, but the majority of shootings in the last several years have not been from that group. We've seen multiple shootings in the last few years from the far left, like the trans shooter in Nashville and the anti-Christian shooter in Sutherland Springs. Granted, most shootings are just personal not political, of course.

 

[Eschatologist]

Most incidents that are charted as "mass shootings" are criminal incidents or incidents of personal violence. Most of those are done with handguns and there is no intention to attract public attention because the intention is usually to kill specific individuals (although there might be any concern about collateral deaths).

When an AR-15 is used, more often it's to attract public attention, and the intention is to kill as many people as possible.

I could think of several cases where that isn't true. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter clearly was focused on attention and used handguns. He was also the most lethal shooter in terms of deaths per shot. He was frighteningly accurate in general.

 

[RDKirk]

The morals of most secular people in the West are Christian in origin regardless of how much they may want to deny it. Secular humanism is just a version of Christianity without God, for the most part. Atheists and agnostics in the West are quite different from the same groups in places like Turkey, for example.

So, you can't really divorce the Enlightenment from Christianity. The Enlightenment itself wouldn't exist, were it not for Christianity. There's a good reason it didn't derive from the Islamic World, for example.

I agree with that.

It doesn't "betray the sanctity of Christianity" to connect the Constitution with Christianity. If anything, denying its influence downplays how important Christianity has been for the development of the US. And the way that this society has declined in morality is precisely because of how much mainstream society wants to discard that influence in favor of materialism, collectivism, race Marxism, gender theory, feminism, and the LGBT nonsense. It's fallen precisely because of how we have let our government, media, and academia dilute and discard faith.

I don't agree with that. We have to be very careful about what we pin the name of Jesus Christ to, because that's how people then identify Him.

We do not want the name of Jesus Christ pinned to the actions of America, not even from its very beginnings. The United States has never, as a nation, behaved like Christ nor has been a model for the Church.

 

[RDKirk]

I could think of several cases where that isn't true. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter clearly was focused on attention and used handguns. He was also the most lethal shooter in terms of deaths per shot. He was frighteningly accurate in general.

I can see that words like "most" and "more often" escape you.

 

[Eschatologist]

I agree with that.

I don't agree with that. We have to be very careful about what we pin the name of Jesus Christ to, because that's how people then identify Him.

We do not want the name of Jesus Christ pinned to the actions of America, not even from its very beginnings. The United States has never, as a nation, behaved like Christ nor has been a model for the Church.

I agree in some respects, but I'll give what is probably the best example of why the West is or at least was uniquely Christian in some regards.

For most of human history, slavery was considered normal and acceptable. It still is in certain parts of the world. The UK became the first nation in history to criminalize slavery in the early 1800s. It may have allowed it long before that, but Christians were the majority of who pushed to end this practice. Later on, abolitionism was largely pushed by Christians in America, which eventually culminated in the 13th Amendment.

So while it is true that the vast majority of our government's actions (and those of any government) are not Christian in nature, we can still take credit for Christianity's wins in policy.

Another great example is how Christians were a huge part of the civil rights movement.

 

[Eschatologist]

I can see that words like "most" and "more often" escape you.

I can see that you tend to be pedantic.

 

[JosephZ]

The current administration wants us to believe that white supremacists are the greatest domestic threat, but the majority of shootings in the last several years have not been from that group.

Homeland Security under the direction of Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, a Trump appointee, also declared that white supremacist are the greatest domestic threat.

Among DVEs [Domestic Violent Extremists], racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs) will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.

WSEs have demonstrated longstanding intent to target racial and religious minorities, members of the LGBTQ+ community, politicians, and those they believe promote multi-culturalism and globalization at the expense of the WSE identity. Since 2018, they have conducted more lethal attacks in the United States than any other DVE movement.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf

 

[JosephZ]

If that appears reasonable to you, then you are in favor of banning most semiautomatic rifles.

I don't know the exact number of semi-automatic rifle models that exist, but if most happen to fall into that category, then I'm fine with it.

Here is a source about Virginia.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/17/8066...ult-weapons-fails-with-help-from-his-own-part

I was looking for a source where Virginia tryed to ban ALL semi-automatic rifles. A previous member said Virginia tried to do this.

Below is the definition of an "assault rifle" from the Virginia bill. It also seems reasonable.

1. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 12 rounds;

2. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle;
(iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(iv) a grenade launcher;
(v) a flare launcher,
(vi) a silencer;
(vii) a flash suppressor;
(viii) a muzzle brake;
(ix) a muzzle compensator;
(x) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a muzzle brake, or (d) a muzzle compensator; or
(xi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (x).

Virginia HB961 | 2020 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2020-02-17) Assault firearms, certain firearm magazines, etc.; prohibiting sale, transport, etc., penalties. [Continued to 2021 in Judiciary (10-Y 5-N)]

legiscan.com

 

[RDKirk]

I can see that you tend to be pedantic.

I do tend to write carefully what I mean.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree in some respects, but I'll give what is probably the best example of why the West is or at least was uniquely Christian in some regards.

For most of human history, slavery was considered normal and acceptable. It still is in certain parts of the world. The UK became the first nation in history to criminalize slavery in the early 1800s. It may have allowed it long before that, but Christians were the majority of who pushed to end this practice. Later on, abolitionism was largely pushed by Christians in America, which eventually culminated in the 13th Amendment.

So while it is true that the vast majority of our government's actions (and those of any government) are not Christian in nature, we can still take credit for Christianity's wins in policy.

Another great example is how Christians were a huge part of the civil rights movement.

For sure, a great many Christians are in America. That does not make America Christian. It just means a lot of Americans are Christian.

If America were a Christian nation, there would never have been need of a Civil War or a civil rights movement....because people on both sides of those issues claimed to be Christian.

 

[Eschatologist]

Homeland Security under the direction of Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, a Trump appointee, also declared that white supremacist are the greatest domestic threat.

Among DVEs [Domestic Violent Extremists], racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs) will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.

WSEs have demonstrated longstanding intent to target racial and religious minorities, members of the LGBTQ+ community, politicians, and those they believe promote multi-culturalism and globalization at the expense of the WSE identity. Since 2018, they have conducted more lethal attacks in the United States than any other DVE movement.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf

It's a bipartisan delusion, to be sure.

DVE has been broadly applied to anyone that expresses anti-state opinions, which is a textbook tactic of authoritarian regimes.