Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[Eschatologist]

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.


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

Once again, that is the vast majority of semiautomatic weapons. So, you are apparently anti-gun for all practical purposes.

 

[Eschatologist]

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.

There wasn't a need for a Civil War, but that's another discussion. Abolitionism was a worthy cause forwarded by Christians, but unfortunately, that's not why the North entered the war. Ending slavery was essentially an afterthought of the war, but thankfully, it happened.

Nevertheless, I would agree that we aren't a Christian nation today, but I would argue that the Constitution is a doctrine of government that is Christian in character. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this particular matter.

 

[Aldebaran]

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


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

Your first statement would be what comes after the banning of the so-called "assault" rifles.

Your second statement ignores the fact that the rifle features you and certain leftist politicians want to see banned are the same features every handgun possesses. By that alone, it's obvious what happens after those features for rifles are banned.

 

[Aldebaran]

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

Just to be "tacticool?"

much of it has nothing to do with making them more lethal. The carry handle that is part of the rear sight of an AR15 is to aid in portability. The heat shield over the barrel is to keep a person's hands from getting burned when the barrel gets hot from fully automatic fire. That's a practical item in the military, but more cosmetic in civilian models. The muzzle attachments are often cosmetic for civilians, but many are practical in making the rifle more pleasant to shoot. Reducing recoil or muzzle flash helps that. The rest of what makes an AR15 look so different is due to its modularity, which makes it more useful for both military and civilians.

 

[Aldebaran]

Once again, that is the vast majority of semiautomatic weapons. So, you are apparently anti-gun for all practical purposes.

A good number of people who claim to only want "sensible gun control" are the same people who are just fine seeing all guns banned. Most won't even admit it. Yet, they wonder why we fight against what they consider to be sensible.

 

[RDKirk]

much of it has nothing to do with making them more lethal. The carry handle that is part of the rear sight of an AR15 is to aid in portability. The heat shield over the barrel is to keep a person's hands from getting burned when the barrel gets hot from Foley automatic fire. That's a practical item in the military, but more cosmetic in civilian models. The muzzle attachments are often cosmetic for civilians, but many are practical in making the rifle more pleasant to shoot. Reducing recoil or muzzle flash helps that. The rest of what makes an AR15 look so different is due to its modularity, which makes it more useful for both military and civilians.

You're limiting the concept of "lethality" to just the bullet and its rate of fire.

"Lethality" of a weapon includes the utility of the entire package.

 

[Aldebaran]

You're limiting the concept of "lethality" to just the bullet and its rate of fire.

"Lethality" of a weapon includes the utility of the entire package.

IOW, we're supposed to want firearms to be less utilitarian, less comfortable to shoot, harder to shoot accurately, etc. for all uses just because it might be used in a wrong way? Then maybe all knives should be dull, and baseball bats should be made soft, just in case a criminal wants to use them to do harm to another human.

 

[FenderTL5]

IOW, we're supposed to want firearms to be less utilitarian, less comfortable to shoot, harder to shoot accurately, etc. for all uses just because it might be used in a wrong way? Then maybe all knives should be dull, and baseball bats should be made soft, just in case a criminal wants to use them to do harm to another human.

No, I don't think that's the point.
The point, as I understood it, was to refute those who erroneously claim that the features on an assault rifle are for aesthetics/cosmetic purposes only. The features are there for a purpose. It just so happens that the purpose of those features are part of the reason why evil people choose those weapons to shoot up schools, malls, etc,
yet everytime it comes up, someone brings up the dishonest, disengenious argument that it's the "scary looks" that are primary.

 

[Eschatologist]

No, I don't think that's the point.
The point, as I understood it, was to refute those who erroneously claim that the features on an assault rifle are for aesthetics/cosmetic purposes only. The features are there for a purpose. It just so happens that the purpose of those features are part of the reason why evil people choose those weapons to shoot up schools, malls, etc,
yet everytime it comes up, someone brings up the dishonest, disengenious argument that it's the "scary looks" that are primary.

Yet advocating for the banning of guns for public safety is also disingenuous as well. Disarming the public doesn't make society any safer as a variety of countries with strict gun laws show. For example, Mexico is far less safe than us overall, but getting a gun legally there is much harder.

The laws being proposed only serve one purpose, whether their advocates realize it or not. They give the state more of a monopoly on force.

This isn't about safety; it's about state power.

 

[dogs4thewin]

IOW, we're supposed to want firearms to be less utilitarian, less comfortable to shoot, harder to shoot accurately, etc. for all uses just because it might be used in a wrong way? Then maybe all knives should be dull, and baseball bats should be made soft, just in case a criminal wants to use them to do harm to another human.

toothbrushes too any number of things anything metal or even hard plastic a bottle, a brick a LOT of things.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yet advocating for the banning of guns for public safety is also disingenuous as well. Disarming the public doesn't make society any safer as a variety of countries with strict gun laws show. For example, Mexico is far less safe than us overall, but getting a gun legally there is much harder.

The laws being proposed only serve one purpose, whether their advocates realize it or not. They give the state more of a monopoly on force.

This isn't about safety; it's about state power.

If I could winner that a million times I would.

 

[Eschatologist]

A good number of people who claim to only want "sensible gun control" are the same people who are just fine seeing all guns banned. Most won't even admit it. Yet, they wonder why we fight against what they consider to be sensible.

Canada shows us how the "sensible" gun control is a slippery slope. They recently banned basically every semiautomatic weapon now. This happened only a few years after they passed a less restrictive gun law that still banned a large portion of rifles.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No, I don't think that's the point.
The point, as I understood it, was to refute those who erroneously claim that the features on an assault rifle are for aesthetics/cosmetic purposes only. The features are there for a purpose. It just so happens that the purpose of those features are part of the reason why evil people choose those weapons to shoot up schools, malls, etc,
yet everytime it comes up, someone brings up the dishonest, disengenious argument that it's the "scary looks" that are primary.

Do you want to save the most lives or have more control? If we want to save the most lives you would ban handguns, yet SCOUNTS has ruled that that violates the 2nd amendment.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Canada shows us how the "sensible" gun control is a slippery slope. They recently banned basically every semiautomatic weapon now. This happened only a few years after they passed a less restrictive gun law that still banned a large portion of rifles.

bingo and yet people have turned to other things like knives.

 

[Eschatologist]

Do you want to save the most lives or have more control? If we want to save the most lives you would ban handguns, yet SCOUNTS has ruled that that violates the 2nd amendment.

Well, it wouldn't actually save the most lives, but I get what you mean.

This does bring us to a fundamental question though: what's more important - safety or freedom? I personally say freedom.

There are plenty of safer countries to live in than the US, but I can't really think of a freer country than us. Granted, with the way things are going with freedom, that may change.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well, it wouldn't actually save the most lives, but I get what you mean.

This does bring us to a fundamental question though: what's more important - safety or freedom? I personally say freedom.

There are plenty of safer countries to live in than the US, but I can't really think of a freer country than us. Granted, with the way things are going with freedom, that may change.

handguns take more lives than the "assault weapons".

 

[Eschatologist]

handguns take more lives than the "assault weapons".

In the context of banning weapons with the assumption that it makes people safer, a handgun ban would presumably make more of a difference in stopping mass shootings. At least, that's how the typical logic of the gun control types works.

Of course, in reality, no gun ban makes the public safer. The best way to make a public place a target for mass shooters is designate it as a "gun free zone." Similarly, gun bans make citizens gun free targets the broader the ban is.

 

[dogs4thewin]

In the context of banning weapons with the assumption that it makes people safer, a handgun ban would presumably make more of a difference in stopping mass shootings. At least, that's how the typical logic of the gun control types works.

Of course, in reality, no gun ban makes the public safer. The best way to make a public place a target for mass shooters is designate it as a "gun free zone." Similarly, gun bans make citizens gun free targets the broader the ban is.

but what I am saying is if you take just body count handgun are used more often than other guns. Mass shootings may be different, but in terms of total lives handguns are the ones that end the most lives, and yet those are not the guns people talk about stricter regulations on.

 

[Eschatologist]

That is true, and the reason they don't push for the ban is the SCOTUS ruling you referenced. Before that ruling, DC and Chicago banned handguns.

Granted, we can see how neither ban had any actual positive effect.

 

[JosephZ]

Once again, that is the vast majority of semiautomatic weapons. So, you are apparently anti-gun for all practical purposes.

I'm not anti-gun, I own guns myself. Like most Americans, including gun owners, I want to see stricter gun laws.

Can you provide a list of all semi-automatic rifle models that are available on the market today so we can see if the majority would be affected by the ban that was proposed in Virginia or the one that passed in Washington state? It would be interesting to see just what percentage of semi-automatic rifles would actually be banned. Either way, there would still be plenty of semi-automatic rifles available for purchase under either of those bans.