Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[dogs4thewin]

Rules from the 18th century are not too effective today.

If somebody is for owning guns (nothing wrong with that), the Swiss model is the way to go, not the American one (obviously).

What is that model?

 

[RDKirk]

Rules from the 18th century are not too effective today.

If somebody is for owning guns (nothing wrong with that), the Swiss model is the way to go, not the American one (obviously).

The Swiss model is exemplary, but it requires rational people in a rational society.

US culture and society makes people crazy, and the murder rate is only one facet of how our craziness manifests.

 

[trophy33]

What is that model?

Almost every Swiss family has several semi-automatic or even fully automatic rifles at home. But no mass shootings. They have a gun culture, but with strict regulations.

All gun owners must go through regular training and testing. If you do not participate or if you act dangerously, police will come and take your guns.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Almost every Swiss family has several semi-automatic or even fully automatic rifles at home. But no mass shootings. They have a gun culture, but with strict regulations.

Everybody must go through regular training and testing.

People here do not trust regulations because they do not trust the government to stop.

 

[trophy33]

People here do not trust regulations because they do not trust the government to stop.

If people in the USA do not trust their government so much that they basically fear it, its probably time to change how your democracy works (or better said "does not work").

Again, 18th century rules are not for today.

 

[trophy33]

Only Jewish citizens. Its like if USA allowed only whites to have guns.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Only Jewish citizens. Its like if USA allowed only whites to have guns.

but the United States does not say that.

 

[trophy33]

but the United States does not say that.

Not anymore. However, In Israel, the country is based on ethnicity, not on citizenship. Similarly to old USA or to former South Africa.

 

[YorkieGal]

We Americans will keep our guns. Debate over. What can we discuss next?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Not anymore. However, In Israel, the country is based on ethnicity, not on citizenship. Similarly to old USA or to former South Africa.

but the here and now is the current issue not what the United States was decades ago with only certain people owning guns. I think the bigger issue here is that the person who supposedly committed the most recent truly mass shooting that likely bumped this thread was VERY VERY mentally unstable

 

[dogs4thewin]

We Americans will keep our guns. Debate over. What can we discuss next?

and more and more people are saying back to the 1776 way if we have to.

 

[trophy33]

but the here and now is the current issue not what the United States was decades ago with only certain people owning guns. I think the bigger issue here is that the person who supposedly committed the most recent truly mass shooting that likely bumped this thread was VERY VERY mentally unstable

I was talking about Israel, not about USA. The (not so old, just few decades ago) USA served only as an example of how the state of Israel works today.

 

[RDKirk]

Almost every Swiss family has several semi-automatic or even fully automatic rifles at home. But no mass shootings. They have a gun culture, but with strict regulations.

All gun owners must go through regular training and testing. If you do not participate or if you act dangerously, police will come and take your guns.

I think this YouTube video is funnier and even more interesting in its implications: Guns at an alcohol festival with unprotected politicians in attendance. I'm not directly linking it because it has a little profanity.

Switzerland’s Responsible Gun Nuts Pt. 2 | The Daily Show​

 

[trophy33]

I think this YouTube video is funnier and even more interesting in its implications: Guns at an alcohol festival with unprotected politicians in attendance. I'm directly linking it because it has a little profanity.

Switzerland’s Responsible Gun Nuts Pt. 2 | The Daily Show​

Yes, I know this one

 

[Aussie Pete]

Two things one gun free zones ( different states have different rules as to A what a gun free zone must be and two whether or not signs are enforceable. In other words, in some states like GA if a business has a sign that says no firearms that is not enforceable in and of itself UNLESS the business tells that person to leave then they must do so or face a trespassing charge, but the sign in and of itself carries no legal weight. I am unsure about ME'S laws on this matter Second you asks if so many civilians have guns how does this happen. Here too there are two points just because civilians CAN carry does not mean they do. For example and most states now DO NOT require permits to carry, however they are suggested for several reasons and back when most states did only between usually 1 and maybe 15% of people had a permit. The other point with that is that OK you said a lot of civilians have guns, yet true mass shootings like this are actually very rare ( in fact most gun deaths are by the person's own hand with them taking no one else with them, if it were truly a gun problem there would be a LOT more shootings trust me.

565 mass shootings year to date is not a problem?

 

[dogs4thewin]

565 mass shootings year to date is not a problem?

I personally have a problem with the way mass shooting is defined. This is a mass shooting, however many of those mass shootings should not be classified as such if you asks me. There are also very few shootings like this one where there seems to be no motive. Even if you counted the ones that do clearly have a motive true mass shootings still very few people compareivly speaking die in such shootings.

Most gun deaths are by a person's own hand.

Then there are gun deaths that are the result of another crime say armed robbery or even gang related crime ( also often targeted could go here or drug deals gone bad ECT. There are so many guns on the black market at this point that even if they were able to get every citizen to hand in their guns ( not going to happen) that number would not likely change a whole lot.

Then there are gun deaths where a person wanted a particular person or persons dead ( not like a group of people like black people for example but like a person or persons that they felt have wronged them ( in these cases often ( particularly if the parties know each other often if they could not access a gun they would go for something else say a knife, poison or even if they knew the person well enough something they had fatal allergies to.

Then there are accidental gun deaths ( many of which by the way can be charged as a crime usually reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter same crime some states call it reckless homicide other states involuntary manslaughter ( so it is not as if such deaths are completely unpunished ( many of these are caused by people who were not practicing firearm safety in some way ( this would usually be the charge brought if for example a very young child shot and killed someone playing with a gun ( the owner of the gun would get the charge or a person who was shot and killed because someone had the safety off when they should have had it on things like that really oversight that should not have happened, but is not so unreasonable that you should in all cases say the person should not have had a gun ( although sometimes that may have been the case, but such a person is not violent or mentally ill it is more of a reckless mistake with sadly fatal results ( which is why it is usually charged as the lowest form of criminal homicide sentence wise.

Finally, there are gun deaths that are what are known as justified homicides. This would be the case for example if this suspect ends up being killed by police when they find him or a civilian shoots and kills someone in self defense or defense of others. If my sister, brother-in law and I were walking down the street for example and someone tried to mug us and J (my brother-in law )takes out his handgun which he is legally carrying and fatally shoots the mugger that is justified homicide. The same would apply in most states if you broke into someone's house and they shot you.


See how the vast majority of gun deaths are actually not mass shootings and certainly not true mass shootings that I define as not committed during any other crime and either not targeted or targeted to a group as a whole based on for example race or religion. Mass shooting is usually defined as a certain number of people shot having nothing to do with motive or whether gang was involved or if it ONLY happened in the commission of another crime and any shooting that did happen was basically secondary to the "main crime".

 

[RDKirk]

but the here and now is the current issue not what the United States was decades ago with only certain people owning guns. I think the bigger issue here is that the person who supposedly committed the most recent truly mass shooting that likely bumped this thread was VERY VERY mentally unstable

There wasn't really a time in the US that only certain people could own guns. Even when I was a kid prior to the Civil Rights Act, it wasn't a big deal for black people to own guns (having the same practical right of self defense as whites was a different matter).

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I'm in the US. Our founding fathers, when penning the constitution and bill of rights, had just won a war against their own government. They, as it said in the declaration of independence threw off their government, as is discussed within the declaration here: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That is why the second amendment exists. It protects the most important amendment, the first. The right to carry arms is for self defense, from all would be attackers. And as Yamamoto allegedly* said, "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

*This is disputed, but the point stands.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Speaking from a biblical perspective this is my viewpoint on the gun debate. Christians should be for gun rights. Why? Because guns are used for hunting and the Bible justifies hunting. Even if you're a Christian pacifist you've got to admit that guns are used for hunting. So if for no other reason Christians should be for gun rights because guns are used for hunting.

Sure. Use a simple rifle. But no need to provide assault weapons to anyone who wants one, or two or more.

 

[Postvieww]

A heavy price to pay for the right to bear arms. Have Americans become numb to such incidents? If so many civilians have guns, how come the shooter got away with killing and wounding so many? Isn't that the justification for arming the citizenry?

Many people die in cars , maybe we should take them away and all ride bikes. Oh ,then there are those killed on bikes so we can take those too. and all just walk.

Your reasoning os flawed, guns do not kill people bad people kill people. Guns are only weapons used for good or evil. Take all of them then we will have more ax murders, and then there will still be bad people with guns who don't care about gun laws.

A person intent on murder will find a way to do it gun or not.

Americans are not numb to murder but many are numb to the constitution and the right to defend ones self and family.